Beirut: Hezbollah, the Lebanese armed group, has declined to deny or confirm US reports that it has received Russian-made advanced missile systems from Syria, which could upset the balance of power with Israel.
"When Hezbollah gets some arms it is for defence purposes which are a natural right," Hezbollah's deputy secretary general Shaikh Naeem Qasim told Gulf News in an exclusive and wide ranging interview. He was responding to a statement made on the issue last week by US secretary of defence Robert Gates.
Hezbollah "doesn't talk about its weapons, the number of its members or its plans. It implements its necessary and appropriate arrangements in complete secrecy. As we are used to for a long time, we don't comment on the issue of armament," Qasim said.
He said the US statement is aimed at "diverting attention" from "the real problem" in the region, which he said was Israel and its growing military capability including nuclear warheads. The US also wants to "cover up its successive failures" in the Middle East, the Hezbollah official said. Meanwhile, he added, Syria's role in Lebanon and the region has been growing as the US role "diminished".
"When the US role, and the role of US allies, is weak, the Syrian role grows in return," he said.
Qasim also sought to assure the Lebanese people that Israel is in no position to launch another war anytime soon. "When we say there is no Israeli war soon, it is because of the inability of Israel, especially when they know the deterrent [capabilities] of the resistance is very effective," he explained. "Every moment we are ready for a confrontation even if our political analysis says there is no war [soon]," he added.
Following is the text of the interview:
Hussam Kanafani: How do you assess the position of Hezbollah today, locally and internationally?
Shaikh Naeem Qasim: We in Hezbollah are witnessing a state of comfort due to a number of developments and policies, including the formation of the unity government which we believe was crucial to the national political settlement that extinguished potential explosive sparks and led to political stability reflected in the current security stability and focused all attention on the economic and social needs of the people. It also opened the door to internal solidarity in the face of [any] Israeli aggression.
There is a state of looking inward aimed at the repositioning of each party in order to enhance its public presence, because many parties realised that the dependence on foreign support might be beneficial in some temporary circumstances or a transitional period but it certainly cannot lead to stability internally, on the contrary we would be exposed to any direct threat.
Therefore, we feel comfortable especially with the level of our readiness in the face of a possible confrontation with Israel. The resistance movement works very hard to prevent any surprise on this regard. Thus we didn't think the latest Israeli threats, or even the American ones, were important or effective. Of course they could be serious, although they are most probably not, but they definitely [are] not effective because in the resistance we are prepared.
Outside Lebanon, there are changes in the region that affect the Lebanese situation, such as the continuing US impasse in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian question in addition to the end of the US' once-effective influence in Lebanon and the return of Syria's influential role [in Lebanon] and Iran's development of its peaceful nuclear programme and its capabilities. All these factors diminished the influence of the US, therefore [we] feel more comfortable. Across the Middle East, any US intervention works in Israel's favour.
Secondly, Israel suffers from the 2006 war fallouts, and its defeat in that war. I can say that the fallout of the war affected Israeli society culturally, politically and militarily. Any Israeli decision today will be dictated by the public perception and the willingness of the Israeli army to offer more sacrifices.
Syria and Iran, which support the resistance, are also in comfortable positions today. A prime example of this is that Syria, which has been isolated for years, is now a destination for diplomatic envoys who believe any possible potential settlement in the region must pass through the Syrian gate.
How do you respond to the recent US statements, particularly from the US secretary of defence Robert Gates who said Hezbollah "has far more rockets and missiles than most governments in the world"? And what of the recent allegations that Syria has delivered Scud missiles to Hezbollah?
The US secretary of defence was trying to divert the attention from Israel. He wants a discussion on Hezbollah weapons, the nature of the weapons and their impact to deflect the increasing worries and debate over Israel's nuclear arsenal.
Also he doesn't want to keep discussing the Israeli failure in the negotiations with the Palestinians. He wants to cover up what is happening in [occupied] Jerusalem and the West Bank and [the Israeli] attempts to eat up more Palestinian land and rights.
These allegations are meant to cover up US failure to offer any solution anywhere in the world. So far, Barack Obama has failed to offer a single political achievement in the Middle East despite all his promising words.
We consider the US campaign, which started with a report leaked to a Gulf-based newspaper about the Scud missiles, then the talk about the number of weapons Hezbollah has, as an attempt to divert the attention away from the real problem which is Israel. We don't have any problem in this region but Israel. All other issues are the products of this problem.
When Hezbollah gets some arms, it is for defence purposes which are a natural right. However Israel is the aggressor. You can notice that all the recent threats came from Israel; you don't hear Hezbollah threatening. All what we said is that we will defend Lebanon and the resistance.
Attention should be focused on the party that wants to initiate a conflict. How can Israel threaten with war? Where is the UN Security Council? The world only talks about putting an end to the resistance instead of stopping the Israeli aggression and massacres and occupation.
The resistance doesn't talk about its weapons, its members or its plans. We do not coment on armament as it is our business. The right to defence is legitimate and so are the means to the achieve this. It implements its necessary and appropriate arrangements in complete secrecy.
As we are used to for a long time, we don't comment on the issue of armament. Israeli intelligence services have always talked of weapons delivered to Hezbollah or the nature of those weapons and we always said we don't confirm or deny because this is one of our secrets. Also, it is no-one's business. I say it now very clearly; we have the right to arm ourselves to empower the resistance on the principle of defence and confronting aggression, occupation and other threats.
This right to defence is legitimate and thus all means to realise that right are legitimate. We ask though why Israel has the right to be armed in this way and with this unjustifiable quantity. How can Israel be allowed to acquire nuclear warheads? The question should be directed at the enemy; not at those who defend their rights and land.
Therefore, all the recent noise about the Scud missiles is an attempt to pressure Hezbollah, put it in the defendant corner and divert the attention off Israel. We will not respond to those statements and will not answer questions, no matter [whether they are] right or wrong, and we will keep up our work as a resistance secretly and in full readiness to do the right job at the right time.
Do you expect a war in the coming months?
Israel is unable to launch war at this time because it worries that it will suffer a defeat. They don't want a repeat of the 2006 war without the probability of success. Israel knows that the deterrent of the resistance is very effective.
Does the same logic apply to Iran. Is there a US and Israeli inability to launch a military attack on Iran?
American officials say that their problem with Iran is that it possesses capabilities that might have an impact which can transcend the military situation in the Gulf region to [tell on] the economic, social and political impact across the world, because after all Iran is a big country with a wide geographical landscape and enjoys a popular solidity when it comes to national issues even between the rival parties. Therefore, one cannot think of occupying Iran because this is almost impossible.
America and its allies can launch an attack on Iran but they actually don't know what the fallout will be. Studies we've seen show the US cannot cope with the expected fallouts let alone the unexpected ones. Therefore, a war against Iran is being ruled out. Even the Israelis have quit talking about the war in favour of giving priority to the sanctions, which at this point may be weak.
Will you be part of the conflict in the case of a military attack on Iran?
It is difficult to understand the potential conditions if the US or Israel launched an attack against Iran. This could lead to a number of scenarios. But what is clear is that the region will be on fire because the fallout of such an attack might reach different areas.
We don't know how Israel will act. It could possibly launch a pre-emptive attack on Lebanon or on Syria, which will lead to chaos the limits of which we don't know. Therefore, I cannot now imagine the war scenario but we should always consider the possibility that in the case of war things might spin out of control in the region.
In Lebanon there is an ongoing national dialogue. Do you think its necessary to keep it on, and do you expect any result?
The dialogue has an important benefit. It brings the different parties together behind closed doors to exchange views and try to reach common denominators. In my opinion, the dialogue has two goals, the minimum and the maximum. If it achieves the minimum, which is reducing the tension on the street, then this is good.
If it achieves the maximum, which is the drawing of a National Defence Strategy, with all of its terms, then this is very good. Whatever is between those lines is also good. Thus, we believe the dialogue is positive and we don't see anything negative about it.. We, in Hezbollah, have a stake in both goals and believe all the Lebanese will benefit from those goals. Having said this, the dialogue is still in its beginning stages and needs further discussion.
Where do you see the peace process going today?
I find it strange that we still talk about this process. In my opinion, it was buried a long time ago. It is dead. When it is mentioned, it is only being touted as a time-wasting ploy to consolidate the Israeli gains. There is no settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. There is only a quasi-settlement aimed at getting the Palestinians to sign away more concessions. It is an illusion.
There is no Palestinian interest in pursuing the process. Israel still insists that it should be allowed to control the entire Palestinian territories and henceforth the Jordanians fear that any solution would be at their expense because the transfer issue is still alive. This transfer project was evident in the West Bank where tens of thousands of Palestinian are under the threat of expulsion.
There is also the ongoing construction in occupied Jerusalem and the ongoing debate in Israel on the identity of the Arabs within the 1948 line. These factors indicate that Jordan is in danger because of the Israeli project and the much talked about Palestinian state will only be a makeshift refugee camp, because of the continuing confiscation of Palestinian land, which is supported by the US.
What is the alternative in you view?
The only option is the resistance. With the resistance, people stay put in their land. The resistance also concentrates and directs the energies at confronting the occupation. Israel and those behind it only understand the language of arms and power. It may take time but will eventually produce results. This is our experience in Lebanon.
From 1978 to 2000, we talked about the UN resolution 425, which was supposed to restore our land diplomatically. Nothing happened and Israel didn't return one inch of the land. The resistance was able to liberate the land in 2000. The Palestinians are an honest and proud people. They have been withstanding and will continue to hold their ground. They see the resistance as the viable option and we all must believe that Israel today is weaker.
How do you see the return of Syrian role in Lebanon? Is Syria today stronger in Lebanon?
Syria will not return to Lebanon. The Syrians don't want that, nor do the circumstances help to achieve that. There is no interest for either Syria or Lebanon in the return of Syrian [domination]. As for the political influence, it is natural for Syria to have such effect due to the surrounding regional set-up. When the US role, and the role of US allies, is weak, the Syrian role grows in return.
The Syrian-Lebanese common interests and the common threats facing them are plenty; and that is what made the bilateral relations very special in the past. This is written in the Taef Accord. It is acknowledgment that relations between Lebanon and Syria have certain characteristics which don't apply between Lebanon and any other country. The ties with Syria have a special meaning in Lebanon and will overcome all the complications of the past five years.
Hussam Kanafani is a journalist based in Beirut.
What is Hezbollah's responsibility when it comes to the defence of Lebanon? Do you agree that Hezbollah has successfully deterred Israel from a possible upcoming war? Should Hezbollah be allowed to have weapons?
