Nassrallah’s Two-Part Speech

Most of Nassrallah’s speech was bluff, except for one serious part.

The speech was threatening, repulsive and worryingly disruptive. It came at a time where many were hoping for a quiet denouement of our presidential crisis via the French/Arab initiative. As one March 14 MP puts it: “The speech was like poison to the little hope the Lebanese people had developed”

The entire world, from the Pope to the Saudis, wants a consensus Lebanese president, and it’s likely what we’re going to get. We are now in the period where negotiations will decide how much the next President will tilt towards one group or the other, and it is here where negotiation muscles are being flexed.

In negotiations, both parties have to have on the table a credible BATNA that convinces the other party to stay on the table. The logic is that mutually assured destruction will keep the parties talking. March 14 have been flaunting their 50+1 option lately, and Hezbollah needed to regain leverage. This explains the part of the speech where Mr. Nassrallah threw a tantrum to create the impression that the opposition will also go all the way (via Mr. Emile Lahhoud) if need be. The aim of course is to create an equilibrium of terror -a game Hezbollah loves- under which negotiations could resume.

One must be careful however not to see all of Nassrallah’s speech as bluff. The serious part is where he spoke of the weapons. Hezbollah has a real issue with UNSCR 1559 which ordains its disarmament, and is willing to fight any President who endorses that resolution. 

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart of the battle: Should we have a consensus president who is soft on Hezbollah’s weapons? Or should we insist on resolution 1559 for which martyr Rafic Hariri and many after him died?

also read in English:
- Reactions by Lebanese officials to speech
- Article by Elias Bajjani in reaction to the speech