Why Nassrallah’s Speech Was Good

The controversial nature of the anniversary and the speech should not overshadow its strategic importance.

By all measures, it was an annoyance to March 14 and many Lebanese who just want to lead a normal life. Hundreds of thousands of people celebrating “victory” for a war many saw as a disaster, shouting “Death to America” and listening to their archrival uttering on huge screens those three dreadful words: “The Next War”.

It even got worse. After the event ended, the same people got out on the streets of Beirut and had “celebratory gun shots” in the air that ended up wounding many people.

Government “sources” muffled protests about whether or not Nassrallah will take anyone’s permission before launching another war. But was that the adequate response? Alas it was not.

If the Government really wanted to prevent another war, it should have played along. After all, Nassrallah never said anything about starting the next war. He just said that he would respond with great force and a “colossal surprise” If Israel attacks. He even said he supported an internal political settlement. 

Seniora should have responded with a speech of his own: “If the Israelis dare attack us, the entire Lebanese people will resist them as one body.” By doing so, Seniora would achieve two objectives: 

1- He would confuse those trying to discredit him as a Zionist and perhaps initiate a political breakthrough. 

2- He would help prevent another war; Nassrallah’s credibility among the Israelis, if coupled with a Seniora’s vow of unity, would make it politically impossible for Israel to launch another war on Lebanon. 

We can be angry with Nassrallah and we can dislike him as much as we want. But we should never forget this very important strategic principle: If you want peace, prepare for war.