US is mad because Hezbollah resists against its plots for region, Iran says

Iran has rejected as “provocative, meddlesome, and undiplomatic” the latest remarks made by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo against the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah.

In a statement on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi pointed to Pompeo’s comments against Hezbollah, and lashed out at him for making such “rude and unwise” remarks and raising “baseless, false, hackneyed, and futile” claims and accusations against a major political and legal part of Lebanon while he was visiting the Arab country.

In his recent trip to Beirut, Pompeo expressed concern over the role of Hezbollah in the Arab country, saying that the Lebanese nation must pick a side.

“Lebanon and the Lebanese people face a choice: bravely move forward as an independent and proud nation or allow the dark ambitions of Iran and Hezbollah to dictate your future,” he said during a joint news conference with his Lebanese counterpart Gebran Bassil on Friday.

Bassil, however, rejected Pompeo’s comments, saying that “Hezbollah is a Lebanese party, not a terrorist group, and it enjoys a wide popular base.”

In his Sunday comments, Qassemi said Hezbollah enjoys the popular backing of the majority of the Lebanese nation, and holds major seats in the country’s government and parliament.

Qassemi said Tehran “totally understands the US’ outrage over the praiseworthy performance and role of the resistance forces, the Hezbollah, and the wise people of the region, and all those who foiled the US’ new colonialist and ominous plots in the region.”

Such remarks and stances stem from the failure of Washington’s destructive policies in the region, the Iranian spokesperson said.

They also “indicate the dissatisfaction and excessive outrage of the irrational rulers of the US over the popular solidarity and unity in Lebanon and the restoration of calm and stability in the Arab state, especially after the formation of its government,” he added.

Qassemi pointed to Washington’s long-lasting policy of intimidating regional governments, and said, “Now that it has failed to realize its ominous goals in the sensitive region of the Middle East, the US is resorting to the worn-out, hackneyed, and outdated trick of intimidating and threatening others in a bid to impose its hegemonic policies and behavior.”

To do that, Washington not only tries to create a rift among other countries, but also levels groundless accusations against others, he added.

“While respecting the government and nation of Lebanon and the independent will of the country, Iran stresses that it will tap into all its capacities in order to promote solidarity and unity in Lebanon, and to reinforce bilateral ties with the country in issues that are in the interest of the Iranian and Lebanese people,” Qassemi said.

Washington claims that the Lebanese resistance movement condones terrorism despite the fact that Hezbollah has been involved in a fierce fight against Takfiri terror groups, including Daesh and al-Nusra Front, thus preventing the spillover of the militancy gripping neighboring Syria into Lebanon.

Hezbollah has also supported the Syrian army in its fight against foreign-sponsored terrorists, who have been wreaking havoc in the Arab country since March 2011.

However, Washington has for long accused Hezbollah of being behind the 1983 bombing attack, in which 241 US Marines were killed.

In October, the administration of President Donald Trump imposed a new round of sanctions on the movement, targeting individuals and international organizations that do business with the group.

The sanctions legislation Trump signed is known as the Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Amendments Act 2018.

Hezbollah was founded in the 1980s following the Israeli invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon. The movement waged a long resistance campaign against Israeli forces and pushed them out of southern Lebanon in May 2000. Since then, the group has grown into a powerful military force. Israeli regime also suffered a humiliating defeat from Hezbollah in the 2006 war.

Since its inception in 1985, the Lebanese resistance movement has been a thorn in the side of Israel and its foreign backers, including the United States.

The Myth of US War on Iran

Kaveh L. Afrasiabi

As Iran's Islamic Revolution turns forty, there is a great deal of media noise in the West regarding the likelihood of a US war with Iran. The assumption that the Trump administration populated by Iran hawks such as National Security Adviser John Bolton are plotting their way toward an open clash with Iran has been around since Trump took office 2 years ago and turned the previous Iran policy on its head by moving away from Obama's thaw to one of pure aggression led by a naked economic war. More recently, a New York Times disclosure that Bolton had requested from the military planners a plan for military strikes against Iran has obviously further fueled the concern that US has war aims on Iran that may put into practice sooner or later.

One of the principal reasons for this concern is the recent escalation of tensions between Iran and Israel, which has given further credibility to the coming war assumption, the argument being that Israel and its supporters in Washington are pushing the White House toward war with their chief Middle East rival accused of acting "hegemonically." Similar concerns about Saudi Arabia, which also accuses Iran of being "expansionist" and out to dominate the region, exist and, so the argument goes, there is a synergy of views between Riyadh and Tel Aviv acting as catalysts for the war scenario. But, should there be a US-Iran war, the dominant Western narrative would likely be along the lines of good versus bad, portraying Iran as the 'bad guy' wreaking havoc on the region and "exporting chaos," to paraphrase President Trump. Reminiscent of the 2003 Iraq war, a good deal of war propaganda as well as 'psychological warfare' goes along with any war scenario, making it difficult to distinguish facts from fabrications.

But, a key problem with the US war scenario is the underestimation of problems and challenges confronting the US military planners that, in turn, act as roadblocks and or disincentives against war. These planners are well aware of Iran's military capabilities that are in many respects quite formidable and capable of inflicting serious damages to US assets in the region, as well as to the assets of US allies. Any US attack on Iran risks engulfing the Persian Gulf, resulting in skyrocketing oil prices and triggering a global recession. It would also put at risk the oil installations of America's allies, e.g., Saudi Arabia, that are easily within the reach of Iran's precision-guided missiles. Iran has also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz as well as other waterways in the region, which would mean that the US navy would have to shoulder the responsibility to keep them open for an indefinite period, representing a major costly chore.

Not only that, it is a safe bet that Iran's Hezbollah allies will rain down their missiles against Israeli targets as soon as US commences an attack on Iran, thus extending the theater of conflict. Armed with tens of thousands of missiles, Hezbollah’s strike capability plays an important role in Iran's deterrence and, therefore, any notion that a US-Iran war will be limited between the two countries is a naïve myth that needs to be debunked. Similarly, Iran can count on the solidarity of Shia popular mobilization groups in Iraq to strike back at the US assets inside Iraq, given Iran's critical contribution to Iraq's anti-ISIS campaign, and this too represents an important area of US vulnerability, just as its other forces in Iran's vicinity, such as in Afghanistan, could also be targeted.

Iran's asymmetrical warfare capabilities have been studied by Western think tanks for some time, and these by and large admit that although US superpower has a preponderance of power, it is liable to lose a number of warships in Persian Gulf in the event of a new US-Iran showdown. Compared to the previous showdown, when US destroyed a bulk of Iran's navy, Iran is not bogged down in a war with another enemy, has drawn the right lessons from that episode, and has considerable advantage over US in a number of crucial areas, such as superiority in ground troops, access to terrain, war morale, etc., while the US is overstretched as a result of its force deployments in other parts of the world and "war-fatigued." 

Of course, an important impediment to a US war on Iran has to do with just cause. US has no just cause against Iran, has acted like a rogue state by pulling out of the nuclear deal and defying the UN Security Council resolution 2231, and whatever its lame excuses for initiating a war against Iran would be a hard sell in the international community. The absence of a credible justification for war is, indeed, a principal reason against the war scenario. Thus, despite the occasional White House saber-rattling against Iran, Trump and his Iran hawk advisers ought to know the substantial risks to US national security interests if they embark on a reckless confrontation with Iran, which can easily turn into a regional conflagration.