The hard -line dialect that Naim Qasim Amin spoke of the Lebanese Hezbollah from Tehran on the issue of disarmament coincided with the second round of Iranian negotiations! This is what Iran has always done by directing the arms to escalate, so that it benefits negotiating.
What is remarkable is that the complete dependency and imitation of the Iranian arms of its main sources.
Previously, the Iranian rejection was conclusive to conduct negotiations with the Trump administration responsible for the killing of Qassem Soleimani and when I was forced to it, it became possible, and for this the Iranian discourse found a formal exit that justifies the retreat, so they said to their negotiation Abbas Araqji, “Go to Pharaoh that he overwhelmed” !! This is how it is forced, and the rejected is accepted if it has an Iranian interest with the exploitation of religious discourse and its employment according to their orientations.
Rather, when they insisted on indirect negotiations as a form of vanity, the American and Iranian delegations remained two hours in separate rooms, and then they met in one room after that 45 minutes, but standing! To this degree, the Iranian reference is keen to satisfy the ear, as it is said without consideration to the reality and reality of what is going on and without looking at Iran’s decline and concession.
Rather, the Iranian reference did not give this “flexibility” to Hezbollah in its negotiations with the Lebanese government, neither a speech nor a reality, and the militancy was the feature of all meetings and negotiations and the exhaustion of other parties, although the party negotiates with its citizens and its people, not a greater devil.
Rather, it was permissible for “flexibility” for Iranian negotiators, when they sat with their American opponents, but rather that this flexibility becomes “heroic” if the Iranian used it with the American, but it is betrayal, normalization and employment if the Lebanese used it with the Lebanese.
The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei authorized the Iranian negotiator to make concessions in the 2013 negotiations with the United States of America, and at that time he called it “heroic flexibility” and then the guide asked the leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard not to disrupt diplomacy, but rather to move away from politics.
The Iranian discourse is very keen on forming and coloring according to the recipient who sees this speech as a religious reference and sacred texts, so he gives him what he wants to hear and what his ear is singing, regardless of the extent of his accuracy or health within what is going on in the meeting rooms, the revolutionary discourse specifically is one of the most important tools of polarization for followers, cadres and imitators, Great selecting descriptions and modifying them according to the revolutionary approach of the historic jurisdiction of the jurist, to the extent that flexibility is described as “heroic” and the defeat is called “re -positioning” if the guides use it in the negotiations.
The question is that the Lebanese Hezbollah is not the right to have heroic flexibility, too, and he negotiates with his government, brothers and people of his country, and accepting fusion within the Lebanese state? Isn’t that flexibility heroic when he preserves blood and lives national abilities? Isn’t that a heroine to be a bridge for the future for his children and his countrymen instead of being a dam in front of that future? Or is flexibility only heroic when it is Iranian, and betrayal when it is Lebanese?
May God help the Lebanese, their government and their army until the end of the American -Iranian negotiations.
