SAEDNEWS: Sheikh Naim Qassem's recent speech on Arbaeen Day was one of Hezbollah's most explicit and decisive positions in the face of internal and external pressures to disarm the Resistance.
The recent speech delivered by Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem in the Arbaeen Day is considered a turning point in Lebanon’s political and security conflict.
It was one of Hezbollah’s most explicit and decisive positions in the face of internal and external pressures regarding the disarmament.
These statements were not only presented as a final argument against the Lebanese government and international supporters of the disarmament plan, but also revealed deep layers of political strategy, national identity, and power equations in the region.
Strategic warning
"The Resistance will never surrender its weapons while the aggression continues, we’ll fight a Karbala battle if necessary and we are confident that we’ll be victorious. Either Lebanon stands and we stand united or events will erupt beyond anyone’s control, and you alone will bear the responsibility," n, Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem said in his Arbaeen speech.
At a time when external pressures and hasty domestic decisions have combined to disrupt Lebanon's defense equation, this stance shows that Hezbollah is prepared to pay the heaviest price possible for its survival and continued role.
Naim Qassem clearly outlined a principle: the issue of weapons of Resistance is not a simple political option, but a matter of existence and survival. In other words, trying to disarm without a defensive alternative plan is nothing more than opening the country’s gates to an enemy that has always wished to weaken Lebanon. This is what elevates his speech beyond an emotional slogan to the level of a strategic warning.
Hezbollah chief warns against sedition
In his speech, Naim Qassem touched on the point that the government has acted contrary to previous commitments, including the ministerial statement and the text of the presidential oath.
These documents clearly emphasized the need to formulate a national security and defense strategy, but instead of designing such a strategy, the government suddenly moved towards disarming the resistance.
The meaning of this action is nothing more than a departure from the logic of national partnership and the coexistence pact. In a system like Lebanon, which is based on a delicate balance of clans, removing a fundamental component is not reform, but rather disrupting the equation of survival.
Hezbollah’s opponents tried to present this stance as a threat of civil war, but a closer look shows that Naim Qassem spoke not of war but of sedition. He warned that the consequences of the government’s decision could drag the country into internal crisis, and the responsibility for this would lie with the government itself, which had succumbed to external pressures. This distinction between “threat of war” and “warning of sedition” is very important, because it distinguishes between the agent of the crisis and the observer who warns.
What role will Lebanese army play in such an equation?
In one hand, the army is obliged to implement the government’s decision, and on the other hand, any practical action against the resistance could plunge the institution into a devastating crisis.
In other words, the crisis ball has been thrown into the army’s court, and there is a risk that the army will be drawn into internal conflict, which would not only destroy its national credibility but could also put Lebanon on the path to full-scale war.
Beyond domestic actors, the hand of foreigners is also clearly visible. The experience of recent years has shown that Israel has never given up on its military defeats and has constantly sought indirect ways to strike at the Resistance. Netanyahu's open welcome to the Lebanese government's decision shows that Tel Aviv has found its tool this time in the official structure of the Beirut government. In parallel, pressure from the United States and some Arab countries has also been used to engineer the political atmosphere in Lebanon to put the Resistance in a difficult position.
Hezbollah Messages
In the face of such dangers, Hezbollah is trying to send two messages simultaneously. First, the Resistance is ready to defend its weapons to the last breath and there is no compromise on this. Second, despite this determination, there is a desire to prevent internal conflict and there is still time to reconsider the government's decisions. This duality of determination to maintain weapons and the desire to avoid sedition is the complex balance point that Hezbollah is trying to convey to the domestic community and external actors.
If we look at this situation more deeply, we can say that Naeem Qassem’s speech carried a kind of redefinition of the concept of “Govornment-Resistance.” He emphasized that Resistance is not an alternative to the state, but rather its complement and partner. Therefore, eliminating Resistance not only reduces the country’s defense capability, but also essentially deprives the state of the true content of sovereignty. In such a reading, the weapon of Resistance is part of the national defense equation, not a factor against it.
This logic is, of course, rejected by the opponents of the Resistance. They see the resistance as a parallel force to the government that prevents the consolidation of the state's exclusive rule. But the reality on the ground in Lebanon has shown that without the presence of the Resistance, there is no deterrent balance against Israel. The experience of past wars alone is enough to show why a large part of Lebanese society continues to emphasize the necessity of the Resistance's survival.
The Outlook
There has been international pressure, particularly from the US and Israel, to disarm Hezbollah since the signing of the Taif Agreement (1989). The agreement, which ended the Lebanese civil war, called for a monopoly on weapons in the hands of the government, but Hezbollah was exempted from this clause due to its role in the Resistance against Israel.
The intensification of efforts to disarm Hezbollah in recent weeks has left Lebanon's future in limbo. The coming days will be decisive. The army is required to present a plan to implement the government's decision by the end of this month, and US representatives will travel to Beirut again to increase pressure.
Naim Qassem's remarks present two main scenarios for Lebanon: civil war or national dialogue. The civil war scenario that Naim Qassem warned about is likely if the disarmament plan is implemented by force. With a history of civil war (1975-1990) and a fragile sectarian structure, Lebanon has a high capacity for instability. The presence of about 20-25 percent of Shiites in the Lebanese army as the force that will be responsible for implementing disarmament complicates this scenario. The possibility of a part of the army disobeying or even joining Hezbollah could lead to the collapse of state institutions.
In such an environment, Lebanon is between two paths: either returning to rationality and reconsidering decisions that could drag the country into the abyss, or falling into a whirlpool of sedition that will not be easy to contain. Naim Qassem's talk of a "Karbala" battle is not a threat, but a metaphor for the level of sacrifice and adherence of the resistance to its principles. This metaphor shows that Hezbollah considers retreating from the issue of weapons to be equivalent to political and national death, and therefore views any scenario imposed from outside as an existential battle. On the other hand, the government and the opposition political movements must realize that playing with such a red line is not a solution to Lebanon's problems, but the beginning of a new crisis whose consequences will encompass all of society.
