Hezbollah and the Syria-Saudi Equation

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

I listen to Al-Manar television and see it repeatedly focus on the “S-S equation” — that is, Syria and Saudi Arabia — as a mechanism for resolving what has come to be known as the “indictment” that the international tribunal investigating Hariri’s assassination might issue. There is at least a media interest, on Hezbollah’s part, in this equation, and perhaps there is a political interest too, since Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah expressed his confidence in the equation in one of his speeches, hoping that it will provide a solution before the indictment is issued. There are writers and political commentators from various parties who express this same hope, and it seems they are waiting for a particular stance from Saudi Arabia that would prevent the indictment from being issued, or strip it of any practical substance on Lebanese soil if it is issued. Some of them believe that Saad Hariri’s position could be decisive if he were to withdraw his confidence in the international tribunal.

For months, Hezbollah has been trying to present the public, whether inside or outside Lebanon, with evidence and proof touching on the integrity of the international tribunal, confirming its position that the tribunal is political rather than judicial. The party has presented several pieces of evidence against Israel through its technical capabilities and its ability to track Israeli aerial photography, and has recently shown viewers the technique of penetrating telecommunications companies and the ability to clone a voiceprint and transmit it over another phone line that can be fed into a mobile handset even without a SIM card in it. It was quite convincing in its description of Israel’s penetration of the Lebanese telecommunications network, presented at a press conference the party held jointly with the Lebanese Ministry of Telecommunications. Then WikiLeaks came along to confirm that what had been mere suspicion about the international tribunal’s cooperation with the United States was, in fact, the truth. The documents showed that the international tribunal coordinates with the United States, and that the international investigator is nothing more than a politician searching for a legal way to implicate Hezbollah.

The party continues to present evidence and proof of the international tribunal’s bias, but it, along with many of its supporters, is waiting for something to come of the S-S equation, and they keep repeating that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with Syria in this regard. Here lies a problem in political analysis, one related to understanding the dialectical relationships among political positions and the dialectical backgrounds behind those positions. It is impossible to construct a political analysis without understanding these relationships, and if an analyst overlooks or ignores them, his conclusions will not be correct, which negatively affects the political decisions built on such conclusions. This is evident in many of the political analyses offered by numerous intellectuals in the region regarding political phenomena and positions, analyses that later proved mistaken. For example, after the Oslo accords, most Palestinian researchers and political analysts drew their pens to speak of the success of the Palestinian revolution in establishing the Palestinian state, and of the abundant good that would befall the Palestinians after the agreement. Now they are swallowing their own words, some of which stick in their throats. And there are many Arab writers who spoke at length of a new Arab dawn after the October 1973 war, overlooking the dialectical relationships and falling instead into conjecture and illusion.

The Saudi regime, like many other Arab regimes, is a British creation, and the kingdom as a whole is a British creation, just as is the case with other Arab kingdoms and fiefdoms. After the contraction of the British Empire, America took over the guardianship of these fiefdoms and the political regimes built upon them. It is well known and universally acknowledged that these regimes cannot deviate from the will of the United States, and that if they possess any political will at all, it is only in marginal matters that do not affect the colonial interests of the United States.

We may hear resounding statements from this or that Arab regime, and we may hear phrases that gladden the heart, or there may be shouting expressing sympathy for the burdened Arab — but none of that will go beyond chatter and political noise, and sympathy devoid of any practical substance. We may see some actions that suggest these regimes stand with the Arab people, such as offering food and financial aid to this or that state, or to this or that people, but this aid comes only after the disaster has already struck, and it is used to cover the nakedness of regimes that nothing can truly cover. The United States is not interested in exposing its agents in the region; it permits them, at times, to adopt certain positions that would improve its own image, but only on condition that they do not disturb the rules of the game in the region — rules which stipulate the necessity of maintaining the stability that secures Israel’s and America’s dominance. Saudi Arabia is no different, in this, from the prevailing pattern in the region, and if it is to take any position regarding the international tribunal, that will not happen without consultation with America, and without America’s permission in the end.

Most Arab regimes are manufactured in Western states; some of them cannot even pay their end-of-month salaries without Western aid, and some of them cannot remain in power without American and Israeli security and military cover. So how could such regimes take important stances that Israel and America would disapprove of? If we think they would, we are drowning in naivety. Saudi Arabia cannot stand against the indictment as long as America and Israel insist on its issuance. In fact, the tribunal was established from the start to implicate Syria and Hezbollah; it is part of the continuing war on the party. So will the attackers withdraw, dragging the tail of their own disappointment behind them, when they have not yet forgotten the results of the July war? And if these regimes are ever to abandon the international tribunal, they will not do so except after devising a new plot against Hezbollah, fiercer and sharper still.

The Arab regimes, Israel, and America are trying to ignite strife in the Arab homeland and the Islamic world, particularly strife between Shia and Sunni, ever since 1979, and they never tire or grow weary in pursuit of this goal — so will they suddenly turn around overnight, with Saudi Arabia defusing the fuse? Stay grounded.

Nor do I think that Hezbollah has forgotten the positions of a number of Arab regimes during the July war. These are regimes interested in breaking Hezbollah’s bones and smashing its head, just as Israel and America are interested in doing; they are concerned with liquidating the party and stripping it of its weapons, reducing it to rubble capable of nothing more than casting votes in elections run the way elections are run in Jordan and Egypt. For this reason I see no benefit in the media and political focus on the S-S equation; it would be better to focus on the equation of those seeking power in the region in the face of continuing Israeli-American aggression. Most of the Arab regimes are mere lackeys, and do not deserve the time spent mentioning them in the media.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “حزب الله ومعادلة ال س س” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.