From “The Islamic Republic” to the Lebanese State: Changes in the Party’s Discourse
Source: Lebanese Forces Website Team
The party gathered the remaining elements of its axis—Iranians, its proxies in Yemen, and Iraqis—on the day of the funeral, which marked the closure of the axis’s chapter in Lebanon. Israel was the most prominent presence in the air, as fighter jets that participated in the strikes leading to Nasrallah’s death flew overhead. However, the most significant aspect was the speech delivered by the party’s Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, which contained a mix of negatives and positives.
Sheikh Naim Qassem’s speech on the day of the funeral is considered a pivotal moment in the party’s political trajectory, especially when examining certain points he raised. The Lebanese political landscape has witnessed qualitative shifts in political positions, particularly regarding the party’s future and its weapons. Qassem’s mention of the party’s potential commitment to “state-building” under the framework of the Taif Agreement opens the door to discussions about the future of the illegal weapons the party has long held onto.
According to analysts, Qassem’s statements can be interpreted in multiple ways. While he attempted to boost the morale of the party’s supporters as usual, his remarks about participating in state-building hold significant implications, especially concerning illegal arms. His acknowledgment of the Taif Agreement can be seen as an implicit admission that the party’s military role has come to an end and that illegal weapons no longer have a place in confronting the Lebanese state.
Observers note that a striking aspect of Qassem’s statements—reported by the Lebanese Forces website—is his acknowledgment of Lebanon as a final homeland for all its citizens. This marks a significant shift in the party’s rhetoric, which has long been linked to the ideology of the Iranian “Islamic Republic.” By affirming Lebanon’s finality as a homeland, Qassem signals a shift in the party’s political thinking, distancing it from past narratives that promoted Iranian hegemony over Lebanon. While this appears to be a positive development, the real challenge lies in translating this rhetoric into practical action.
With Qassem’s declaration that the time has come for diplomacy, analysts question the sincerity and seriousness of implementing this policy. Diplomacy is incompatible with the existence of a parallel armed force alongside the Lebanese army. Although Qassem emphasized the party’s need to contribute to state-building, the key issue remains execution. His recognition of the Lebanese army’s role in defending Lebanon is a positive step, but the question of the party’s weapons and their handover to the Lebanese state remains open. Analysts argue that his remarks carry multiple meanings, potentially signaling the necessity of relinquishing illegal arms—an issue that requires concrete steps beyond political statements.
Analysts conclude that while Qassem’s speech represents an initial declaration that could signal future transformations, the fundamental issue remains the credibility and practical implementation of these statements.