Standing by Iran is Hezbollah's duty: Nasrallah

Beirut, Sept 20, IRNA - Lebanese Hezbollah secretary-general said US is punishing Iran because Tehran refuses to subdue to Washington bullying and Hezbollah is duty-bound to stand by the Islamic Republic of Iran

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah stressed that “it is our duty to stand by” the Islamic Republic of Iran in face of all kinds of pressures.

“Iran is being punished by the US for a clear reason: it refuses to subdue to the American master like other states. It wants to stay an independent and sovereign state. We have to recall its support to the resistance in Palestine and Lebanon, its support to Iraq and Syria in face of ISIL.”

This year on Ashura anniversary, Sayyed Nasrallah told the Zionists that all their attempts to prevent Hezbollah from possessing advanced and accurate missiles have been foiled, stressing that the issue “is all over” and that the Israelis themselves can’t imagine their fate if these missiles are used in any future war.

Addressing attendees of Ashura march in Beirut’s southern suburb (Dahiyeh) on Thursday, Sayyed Nasrallah voiced Hezbollah’s stances on several regional and local issues.

Path of Dignity

Sayyed Nasrallah started his speech talking about the occasion. His eminence sent condolences to Imam Mohammad Al-Mahdi (AS) on the martyrdom anniversary of Imam Hussein (AS).

Sayyed Nasrallah saluted all those who took part on the Ashura march and ceremonies in the last ten days in Dahiyeh and in other areas across Lebanon. His eminence reiterated Hezbollah and the resistance’s commitment to the path of Imam Hussein, path of dignity, stressing that all sacrifices and victories were achieved due to the commitment to this path and this school.

“Imam Hussein’s resounding saying “Never to Humiliation” will last,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.

“Today, all crowds in Lebanon’s Dahiyeh, south, Bekaa and in the entire region is an indication that Imam Hussein’s blood really defeated the sword.”

Palestine, Yemen, Bahrain

Stressing that the tenth of Muharram is the “day of stances”, Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated Hezbollah’s firm position in supporting people of Palestine, Yemen and Bahrain.

“First, we reiterate our ideological commitment to Palestine and Al-Quds. We reiterate our support to Palestinian people and their legitimate rights to confront the so-called ‘deal of century’,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, as he hailed the Return Marches at the border between Gaza and the occupied territories.

“Second, we stress our firm stand by Yemeni people who have been witnessing Karbala for nearly four years. This oppressed people have been demonstrating all forms of steadfastness, courage and patience, just like Karbala… It is all Muslims and Arabs’ duty to denounce and act in order to prevent the Saudi war in Yemen, this is moral responsibility.”

Third, we reiterate our support to peaceful people of Bahrain whose scholars and youths have been jailed and suppressed by the Bahraini regime,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, as he lashed out at Bahraini regime’s policy of naturalization of foreigners in the country in a bid to make demographic change in the Persian Gulf island.

Lebanon

On Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated the call for calm and dialogue, as well as the call to hasten the formation of the new cabinet.

Future War with Zionist Entity

Turning to the struggle with the Zionist entity, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the resistance has to stay on alert, noting that the Israeli enemy has been furious because its scheme in the region has failed.

“They (Israelis) were betting on the events in Syria and Iraq. But now they know well that the axis of resistance is more powerful and that more sides joined this axis.”

“Israelis are concerned, and we have to be vigilant… We should not be at ease. The enemy fears any future confrontation in the region, especially with Lebanon. He (Israeli enemy) knows well that any future war will have massive repercussion, and that his points of weakness are known to us.”

Sayyed Nasrallah cited remarks of Israeli defense minister who talked about strategic changes that took place in the Middle East.

“A few days earlier, Israeli DM said that in the Middle East strategic changes took place, noting that the first change is that Israel’s enemies acquired accurate missiles and that the Israeli home front became the main front in any future war. The Israeli minister said that in 1973 war Israelis in Tel Aviv were at calm, they were taking coffee and reading newspapers. But he noted that now, everything has changed. I tell the Israeli minister: Yes, everything has changed.”

Sayyed Nasrallah meanwhile, pointed out to Israeli attempts to prevent Hezbollah from acquiring advanced and accurate missiles in Syria.

“They (Israelis) have been working hard to cut off the road and prevent us from possessing accurate missiles. I say whatever you do to cut off the road on us, it’s all over, we are now in possession of accurate missiles that if used in any future war you can’t expect what your fate will be.”

“The Israeli enemy knows well that technology alone can’t have the final word in the battle without the human capabilities.”

Sayyed Nasrallah furthermore hit back at Israeli remarks that the Hezbollah S.G. “threatens from a shelter,” by saying: “Allah has elongated my lifespan and you have been trying in day and night to kill me but I’m still alive. Staying alive is an indication for your failure.”

The resistance leader then concluded his speech by saying that all Hezbollah’s power and steadfastness “is from Imam Hussein (AS),” stressing that: “All our days are Ashura and we have written ‘At Your Service O Imam Hussein’ with blood and patience.”

Islamic movements and the struggle against authoritarianism

Crescent International

The fact that virtually every regime in the Muslim world, except the Islamic state of Iran, is a dictatorship of some kind or other is widely recognized. In the last month, we have seen high-profile protests against the authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Pakistan. Similar protests, usually on a smaller scale, are commonplace in both countries and in many other Muslim countries. Other countries are even more repressive, so that even such ineffective protests are impossible. Confronting this authoritarianism is inevitably the starting point for virtually all political activism in such countries. Unfortunately, experience suggests that such activism is currently largely ineffective; Mubarak, for example, has been in power since 1981, when he succeeded Anwar Sadat after the latter’s execution, and no-one expects him to surrender power any time soon. If this activism is to be more effective, therefore, some key points need to be understood.

The first is the main reason for the prevalence of authoritarian rule in our countries. There are several explanations for this phenomenon. One, which underpins much Western discussion on the topic, is that there is something in Islamic values and political culture that makes Muslim societies more prone to authoritarianism. This, however, is no more than blaming the victims of dictatorship for their own repression, especially as Islamic movements are both the main political opposition movements in most Muslim countries, and the greatest victims of state repression. This paradox is ignored by Western intellectuals and politicians, who routinely turn the argument around to suggest that the defeat of “political Islam” is an essential prerequisite for the democratisation of Muslim countries.

This formulation takes us closer to the reality of the situation: that the prevalence and popularity of Islamic movements is the main obstacle to democratisation and the main reason for the survival of the dictators. Why? Because virtually every dictator in the Muslim world is an ally of the West, and depends on the West for survival. (This includes even Syrian ruler Bashar al-Asad, who is publicly vilified by the West for their opposition to Israel and relationship with Iran and Hizbullah; remember, for example, where the US sent Mahar Arar for torture after his arrest in New York in 2002.) The real reason for the prevalence of authoritarian rule in Muslim countries is that the West fears any real political liberalisation because it would inevitably mean the rise of Islamic movements and the establishment of governments that represent their own peoples’ values and interests rather than those of the West.

The West claims, of course, to champion democratisation and political reform in Muslim countries. But these claims need to be examined critically. Those of Western politicians like USsecretary of state Condoleezza Rice, who last month lectured Egypt on the need for political reform, can be dismissed as hypocritical, self-serving double-talk that fools no-one. Then there are the claims of many Western non-governmental institutions, which claim to be promoting civil society, political reform, human rights and democratisation, and often offer help and support to opposition movements in Muslim countries. Often they lobby for political prisoners and offer support networks for opposition groups. But this support is seldom without strings: it is offered to those who are willing to set aside any Islamic commitment and accept broadly secular, pro-Western notions of democratic government. Thus marginal figures with little popular credibility are supported and promoted, such as Saad Eddin Ibrahim in Egypt, while far more popular Islamic movements, even those that work within existing systems, such as the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, are seen as part of the problem.

Islamic movements seeking to oppose authoritarian regimes commonly make two errors. The first is to soften or moderate their Islamic approach in order to find common ground with others who also oppose the government but are less Islamically oriented. These often include secular groups with Western connections. The second is to try to oppose the dictators from within the political systems that they establish. But these systems, even where they have apparently ‘democratic’ elements, such as parliaments and elections, are designed to secure the regime in power, and have rarely been used successfully against their creators; and never when the dictators have had outside support to crush opposition groups if and when they threaten to become too independent.

All dictators recognise that they must allow a degree of political activism and opposition to absorb popular political passions; and so they do, to the greatest extent possible before their essential interests are threatened or they fear losing control of the situation, at which stage the restrictions kick in, usually with tacit Western support in the name of maintaining stability. The opposition demonstrations and activism that we are seeing in Egypt and Pakistan must be understood in this framework. In both countries, the dictators are secure in the knowledge that their own positions are reasonably strong; and the powers behind them are secure that even if the dictators fall there is no risk of genuinely popular, Islamic and anti-Western alternatives emerging.

While Islamic movements must continue to maintain political pressure on the dictators of our countries, therefore, they must also look beyond this immediate imperative. If such opposition is to be meaningful, Islamic movements must offer strategies for the total transformation of Islamic societies, rather than working within existing systems, and build popular bases for more effective political opposition in the future. Such movements are, of course, the ones that are most heavily repressed. But nothing less will achieve the ultimate object of the liberation of our societies from both the West and the dictators.