Lebanon's ‘symbol’ ... to resist the Iranian project

It was useful that the Secretary General of the Iranian Nation Security Council Saeed Jalili mentioned Lebanon as a "symbol of resistance". This was the sentence Jalili used when starting his strange and odd visit to Beirut, a visit that also included Damascus and Baghdad. The visit was on the same day the Syrian Prime Minister Riad Hijab announced his defection. This development means a lot to Iran, which refuses to admit losing its cards one after the other. Yes... Lebanon is resisting... It is resisting Iran’s attempts to impose dominance over it and stir religious and sectarian tension after Lebanon resisted Israel in the past, which tried everything to break the bonds between Lebanese arriving in 1989 and 1990 to encourage the Christian–Christian fight. It’s a fight that was made up at the time by the Christian Michel Aoun who was the leader of the Lebanese army, in an attempt to please the Syrian regime and nothing more! What did Jalili come to do in Beirut? Who assigned him to talk about Lebanon as "symbol of resistance"? Did he come to inspect his troops in Lebanon? Did he come to ensure that Iran refuses to lose Lebanon after losing the Syria card and that losing Syria doesn’t necessarily mean losing Lebanon? The Iranian official probably came to Lebanon and then went to Syria to say that Beirut is an Iranian Port on the Mediterranean, and that Iran owns the biggest militia in Lebanon, maybe the only religious militia present in Lebanese territory that is capable of doing whatever it wants in the country. It seems clear that Iran can’t admit that its bet on the Syrian regime, only on a religious basis, wasn’t in place, and that sooner or later it should recognise the new reality that Syria will be back within the Arab fold and won’t be an Iranian colony as it was during the last few years, especially after the Syrian army was forced to withdraw from Lebanese territory. From the moment Syria withdrew from Lebanon as a result of the assassination of President Rafiq Hariri and his companions, the Syrian regime was under the mercy of the presence of the military and security presence of Iran in Lebanon. This Syrian regime has no more influence outside the Syrian territory without Iran, unless we exclude the terrorist attacks which were supported by Iraq, which wanted to confirm through it that it still has regional cards. It’s not important what Jalili or any other Iranian official says about Lebanon. These days the Iranian talk doesn’t express anything but inability to understand that Lebanon is primarily resisting Iran and its regional project, which has no target but trading the small nation and its citizens, and making deals here and there with the American "greater devil" or the Israeli "smaller devil". The Lebanese people know that very well, therefore they don’t believe a word by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of the Iranian Hezbollah, who wanted to reassure the Lebanese that his party doesn’t want to lay hands on Lebanon. If Hezbolllah – which is nothing but a part of the "Iranian Revolutionary Guard" – was able to lay hands on all Lebanon, then it would have been done long ago. The proof for this is that it didn’t hesitate a moment in changing the nature of the Shiite community in Lebanon and expanding through buying land in all Lebanese regions, particularly at the expense of Christians and Druze. If Hezbollah was really in power, it wouldn’t have carried out the battle of Beirut and Jabal, and wouldn’t have imposed itself by force of arms on a government headed by Najib Mikati, which had no goal in its formation -in the way it was formed – except humiliating Christians and Sunnis. What Jalili refuses to admit is that Lebanon is already resisting the Iranian project, despite the "Hezbollah" weapon directed against the chests of the weaponless Lebanese. It escapes reality in Lebanon, Syria and even Iraq. This is the reality which makes the Iranian regime the partner of the Syrian regime, in a game named living in a special world. It’s a world linked to the illusion of the regional role. This illusion led the Syrian regime to where it is now and prevented it from making radical and real reforms since the first day President Bashar al-Assad replaced his father in June 2000. This regional illusion made the Syrian regime unable to understand that Syrians themselves know very well that there is no such thing as "resistance" or "objection" and that they want dignity and freedom first. The sure thing is that they don’t want a certificate from Jalili or any other Iranian about being national. The Syrian regime failed to reform itself because Bashar al Assad didn’t realise from the beginning that the crisis Syria suffers is a deep crisis and that it can’t be solved by continuous escape to Emam or to physically get rid of this national figure or another, whether in Lebanon or Syria. The statements issued by the National Security Council official in Beirut then Damascus were a proof on the unity between the Iranian and Syrian regimes, and the suffering of both from the regional illusion. If it weren’t so, Jalili and his superiors would have addressed the deep issues of Iran, and would have concentrated on  fighting poverty which is suffered by most Iranians instead of seeking to trade Lebanon and Lebanese, Syria and Syrians, Palestine and Palestinians and Iraq and Iraqis. The Iranian game is exposed, and no longer fools anyone... exactly as the Syrian regime’s tricks and crimes were exposed before. --- The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.