Hezbollah Reiterates Its Refusal to Enter the War
The US military intervention alongside Israel in its war against Iran has sparked growing concern in Lebanon, mixing fear with uncertainty about what lies ahead, especially as the region awaits Iran's response.
Lebanese citizens are questioning whether Iran will retaliate solely against Israel or also strike nearby US military bases. Some speculate that Iran might avoid targeting American bases in neighboring countries that have shown solidarity with Tehran, as maintaining these relationships could help Iran push for an end to the war and a return to US-Iranian dialogue.
Despite mounting regional tension, Hezbollah continues to avoid direct military involvement. This position aligns with the recent statements of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who affirmed that Hezbollah will not intervene.
While some interpreted Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem's pledge of 'full support to Iran in any way we deem appropriate' as a divergence, sources say the party is fully aligned with Berri.
Berri maintains that dialogue between Washington and Tehran is the only path to halting the conflict and addressing Iran's nuclear file. His stance is echoed by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and other political actors.
US envoy Thomas Barrack, currently stationed in Türkiye, reportedly discussed these matters with Lebanese officials and promised to return in three weeks, hoping for progress toward a ceasefire and the implementation of UN Resolution 1701, which calls for Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon and for weapons to be under the exclusive control of the Lebanese state.
According to sources, the US escalation has prompted behind-the-scenes consultations between Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and Lebanese state officials. These talks aim to evaluate the situation and ensure Lebanon remains out of the regional conflict.
Hezbollah remains firm in its decision not to engage militarily, refusing to offer Israel a pretext to expand the war into Lebanon. Despite internal solidarity with Iran, Hezbollah is keenly aware that joining the war would not shift the military balance, which now involves advanced weaponry beyond its capabilities.
The sources added that the party is also mindful of Lebanese Shiite public sentiment, which favors stability over another devastating war. Memories of past conflicts, including the toll of Hezbollah's support for Gaza, linger. Fears of displacement and economic ruin are driving many in Beirut's southern suburbs to sell their homes, often at steep losses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
42 minutes ago
- Arab News
Netanyahu's delusional pursuit of a ‘new Middle East'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persistently declares his ambition to 'change the face of the Middle East.' Yet his repeated assertions seem to clash with the unfolding reality on the ground. Netanyahu's opportunistic relationship with language is now proving detrimental to his country. The Israeli leader undoubtedly grasps fundamental marketing principles, particularly the power of strong branding and consistent messaging. However, for any product to succeed over time, clever branding alone is insufficient; the product itself must live up to at least a minimum degree of expectation. Netanyahu's 'product,' however, has proven utterly defective. Yet the 75-year-old Israeli prime minister stubbornly refuses to abandon his outdated marketing techniques. But what, exactly, is Netanyahu selling? Long before assuming Israel's leadership, Netanyahu mastered the art of repetition — a technique often employed by politicians to inundate public discourse with specific slogans. Over time, these slogans are intended to become 'common sense.' As a member of the Knesset in 1992, Netanyahu delivered what appeared to be a bombshell: Iran was 'within three to five years' from obtaining a nuclear bomb. In 1996, he urged the US Congress to act, declaring that 'time is running out.' Iran has remained his primary focus Dr. Ramzy Baroud While the US pivoted its attention toward Iraq, following the September 2001 attacks, Netanyahu evidently hoped to eliminate two regional foes in one stroke. Following the fall of the Iraqi government in 2003, Netanyahu channeled all his energy into a new discourse: Iran as an existential threat. Between then and now, Iran has remained his primary focus, even as regional alliances began to form around a discourse of stabilization and renewed diplomatic ties. However, the Obama administration, especially during its second term, was clearly uninterested in another regional war. As soon as Obama left office, Netanyahu reverted to his old marketing strategy. It was during Trump's first term that Netanyahu brought all his marketing techniques to the fore. He utilized what is known as comparative advertising, where his enemies' 'product' is denigrated with basic terms such as 'barbarism,' 'dark age,' and so forth, while his own is promoted as representing 'civilization,' 'enlightenment,' and 'progress.' He also invested heavily in the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) marketing technique. This entailed spreading negative or misleading information about others, while promoting his own as a far superior alternative. This brings us to 'solution framing.' For instance, the so-called 'existential threats' faced by Israel can supposedly be resolved through the establishment of a 'new Middle East.' For this new reality to materialize, the US, he argues, would have to take action to save not only Israel but also the 'civilized world.' It must be noted that Netanyahu's 'new Middle East' is not his original framing. This notion can be traced to a paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2004. It followed the US war and invasion of Iraq, and was part of the intellectual euphoria among US and other Western intellectuals seeking to reshape the region in a way that suited US geopolitical needs. The Carnegie article sought to expand the definition of the Middle East beyond the traditional Middle East and North Africa, reaching as far as the Caucasus and Central Asia. American politicians adopted this new concept, tailoring it to suit US interests at the time. It was US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who largely rebranded 'greater' to 'new,' thus coining the 'new Middle East,' which she announced in June 2006. Clever branding alone is insufficient Dr. Ramzy Baroud Though Netanyahu embraced the term, he improvised it in recent years. Instead of speaking of it as a distant objective, the Israeli leader declared that he was actively in the process of making it a reality. 'We are changing the face of the Middle East. We are changing the face of the world,' he triumphantly declared in June 2021. Even following the events of Oct. 7, 2023, and the Israeli war and assault on Gaza that ensued, Netanyahu never ceased using the term. This time, however, his emphasis on 'change' rotated between a future possibility and an active reality. 'I ask that you stand steadfast because we are going to change the Middle East,' he said on Oct. 9 of that same year. And again, in September 2024, he proclaimed that Israel was 'pursuing' a plan to 'assassinate Hezbollah leaders' with the aim of 'changing the strategic reality of the Middle East.' And again, in October, December, and January of this year. In every instance, he contextualized the 'change of the Middle East' with bombs and rockets, and nothing else. In May, coinciding with a major Israeli bombing of Yemen, he declared that Israel's 'mission' exceeds that of 'defeating Hamas,' extending to 'changing the face of the Middle East.' And, finally, on June 16, he assigned the same language to the war with Iran, this time remaining committed to the new tweak of adding the word 'face' to his new, envisaged Middle East. Of course, old branding tactics aside, Netanyahu's Middle East, much like the old US 'greater Middle East,' remains a pipe dream aimed at dominating the resource-rich region, with Israel serving the role of regional hegemon. That said, the events of the past two years have demonstrated that, although the Middle East is indeed changing, this transformation is not happening because of Israel. Consequently, the outcome will most likely not be to its liking. Therefore, Netanyahu may continue repeating, like a broken record, old colonial slogans, but genuine change will only happen because of the peoples of the region and their many capable political players.
Al Arabiya
44 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
What countries will be most affected by Iran's closure of Strait of Hormuz?
Around 84 percent of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz is destined for Asia, leaving the economies of China, India, South Korea and others vulnerable should Iran blockade the crucial trading route over US strikes on its nuclear sites. Around 14.2 million barrels of crude oil and 5.9 million barrels of other petroleum products pass through the strait per day -- representing around 20 percent of global production in the first quarter, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). And crude oil from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and Iran almost exclusively passes through the corridor. Here are the main Asian countries where oil exported via the strait is destined: China More than half of the oil imported by East Asia passes through the Strait of Hormuz, experts estimate. China is one of the largest buyers, importing 5.4 million barrels of crude oil a day through Hormuz in the first quarter this year, according to the EIA. Saudi Arabia is China's second-largest supplier of crude oil, accounting for 15 percent of its total oil imports -- 1.6 million barrels a day. China also buys more than 90 percent of Iran's oil exports, according to the analysis firm Kpler. It imported 1.3 million barrels of Iranian crude oil a day in April, down from a five-month high in March. India India is highly dependent on the Strait of Hormuz, importing 2.1 million barrels of crude a day through the corridor in the first quarter, EIA data shows. Around 53 percent of India's imported oil in early 2025 came from Middle Eastern suppliers, particularly Iraq and Saudi Arabia, local media reported. Wary of an escalating conflict in the Middle East, New Delhi has increased its imports of Russian oil over the past three years. 'We have been closely monitoring the evolving geopolitical situation in the Middle East since the past two weeks,' India's Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas Hardeep Singh Puri said on Sunday. 'We have diversified our supplies in the past few years and a large volume of our supplies do not come through the Strait of Hormuz now,' he wrote on X, adding 'We will take all necessary steps to ensure stability of supplies of fuel to our citizens.' South Korea Around 68 percent of South Korea's crude oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz -- 1.7 million barrels a day this year, according to the EIA. South Korea is particularly dependent on its main supplier Saudi Arabia, which last year accounted for a third of its oil imports. Seoul's trade and energy ministry said there have been 'no disruptions so far in South Korea's crude oil and LNG imports' but 'given the possibility of a supply crisis', officials were 'planning for potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.' 'The government and industry stakeholders have prepared for emergencies by maintaining a strategic petroleum reserve equivalent to about 200 days of supply,' the ministry said in a statement. Japan Japan imports 1.6 million barrels of crude oil a day through the Strait of Hormuz, the EIA says. Japanese customs data showed 95 percent of crude oil imports last year came from the Middle East. The country's energy freight companies are readying for a potential blockade of the strait. 'We're currently taking measures to shorten as much as possible the time spent by our vessels in the Gulf,' shipping giant Mitsui OSK told AFP. Others Around 2 million barrels of crude oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz each day in the first quarter were destined for other parts of Asia -- particularly Thailand and the Philippines -- as well as Europe (0.5 million barrels) and the United States (0.4 million barrels). Limited alternatives Asian countries could diversify their oil suppliers, but it is difficult to replace the large volumes coming from the Middle East. In the short term, 'elevated global oil inventories, OPEC+'s available spare capacity, and US shale production all could provide some buffer', experts at MUFG Bank said. 'However, a full closure of the Hormuz Strait would still impact on the accessibility of a major part of this spare production capacity concentrated in the [Arabian] Gulf,' they said. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have infrastructure to bypass the strait, potentially mitigating disruptions, but their transit capacity remains very limited -- around 2.6 million barrels a day. And the Goreh-Jask pipeline built by Iran to export via the Gulf of Oman, which has been inactive since last year, has a maximum capacity of only 300,000 barrels per day, according to the EIA.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Qatar says situation in the country is stable amid regional tension
Qatar said on Monday that it is ready to take all necessary measures to ensure safety of citizens and residents adding that advisories do not reflect the 'presence of specific threats' in the country. Developing
