The political debate in Lebanon about Hezbollah's weapons, and the National Defense Strategy, are approaching the essential issue that governs the situation in the country. This issue is directly related to regional changes that are underway, and specifically the struggle in Syria and the struggle between regional and international forces over Syria, as an active element in the Lebanese domestic formula. President Michel Suleiman has called for the National Dialogue committee to convene, to discuss this defense strategy and Hezbollah's weapons. At times, the parties concerned by this debate lean in the direction of giving a “national" Lebanese stamp to this debate, and at others it is a technical, military character. Phrases such as “limiting to weapons to the Lebanese state" are used by one side, while “coordination between the Lebanese army and the resistance as the best formula for protecting Lebanon from the Israeli enemy" are used by the other camp. The parties are moving toward engaging in a bit of “transparency" in dealing with the issue when they are obliged to tackle the true reasons behind domestic disputes, which are linked to the options and foreign alliances of the Lebanese. Needless to say, there are many issues, both short-term and long-term, which require solutions. These issues are being tackled by using the argument that one must prepare for the change that is coming from Syria, and the idea that the role played by the Syrian regime in anchoring Lebanon's domestic formula over recent decades, except for the 2005-2011 period, requires making a change to the domestic balance of power, which Hezbollah's weapons helped cement, especially since 7 May 2008, because of Syria's role. Meanwhile, one group in Lebanon believes that change in Syria will not alter this domestic formula, because what the Syrian regime set down when it was strong will not collapse, as it remains resilient, and because a strong Iran is a fundamental partner in anchoring this arrangement as well. This applies to the survival of the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati, which becomes shaky when the crisis in Syria intensifies, and then quickly gains its feet when the regime continues to hang on. This is why Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Hezbollah, described the debate with the group that has raised the issue of the party's weapons as a “dialogue of the deaf." The discussion of the military, technical side of the matter is useless if those concerned do not take into consideration the regional elements, even though there is a denial of their direct impact on the impasse over non-state weapons. This denial did not prevent Suleiman from telling newly-graduated officers on Army Day this week: “Change in the surrounding environment could require you to play a bigger and more leading role, in light of the possibility of a change in the strategic balance of power." He held that there was an urgent need for a defense strategy that is based on the army, and “that there can be no partners with the army, and no pressure on the trigger for objectives that are foreign to national consensus." This denial did not prevent Nasrallah from saying, during an evening address on the same day, that his rivals “want to discuss a defense strategy aimed at abolishing the resistance, and they do not want to discuss a liberation strategy, because it will lead to solidifying the resistance." Although Nasrallah's comments can be considered a direct response to Suleiman, the recent affirmation of Lebanon's neutrality vis-à-vis regional alliances generated a clear stance by Nasrallah, when he said, “the political regime (and not the government of Mikati, as he added) is afraid of the Americans and of taking the decision to provide weapons to the Lebanese Army from Iran, as it armed the resistance." Nasrallah also affirmed that the Iranians “are ready to produce electricity for us, provide weapons to our army, pave our roads, and build tunnels and offer solutions for traffic congestion, and because they invest huge sums in Lebanon, to the tune of billions of dollars." It is easy to understand Hezbollah's linkage of Lebanon's presumed defense strategy to Iranian assistance, which he said the country's political system dares not embrace because of the American veto, and his insistence on discussing a strategy of liberation beforehand, even though he already agreed to the agenda for National Dialogue as set down by Suleiman. After all, the Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said that talk of a political transition in Syria and Bashar Assad's stepping down was “a delusion." It is also easy to understand Hezbollah's rejection of any discussion about its weapons because the party halted the internal debate underway among the ranks of party leaders about the need to prepare for the period that will follow change in Syria, after the explosion at the National Security building in Damascus, which killed several high-ranking officials, and the offensive by Syrian rebels on Damascus and Aleppo. The decision by Tehran is to solidify the regime and keep it in power for the longest period possible, because this is connected to the defense strategy of Iran's national security. Tehran is resisting any change in the “strategic balance of power" in the region and Hezbollah's weapons are part of the formula that Iran wants to keep in place. Perhaps this is also the reason that helps us understand Nasrallah's remarks in this regard, namely that the “(resistance) is an existential matter for us... before it is one of how much land, and how much blood, and how many weapons."
