|Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has not criticised his Syrian or Iranian allies for their attacks on protesters [Reuters]
Hassan Nasrallah is in trouble. This time the troubles of the Secretary General of Hezbollah, which were hitherto the source of his strength, are not coming from Israel, or from the sectarian politics of Lebanon. Seyyed Hassan's troubles, which this time around are the harbingers of his undoing as an outdated fighter, are coming from, of all places, the Arab Spring.
The Arab Spring, the transnational uprising of masses of millions of people from Morocco to Oman, from Syria to Yemen, is making the aging warrior redundant - his habitually eloquent tongue now stuttering for words. Two years ago, he thought he got away with rejecting the democratic uprising in Iran (whose brutal ruling regime is his principle patron and financier), as a plot by the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. And he did - aided and abetted by the moral and intellectual sclerosis of a segment of Arab intellectuals who thought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamic theocracy were the vanguard of "resistance" to US/Israel imperialism in the region and thus should be spared from criticism. And then Tunisia happened, and Egypt, and Libya, and Bahrain, and Yemen - and then, Hassan Nasrallah and Ali Khamenei's nightmare, Syria happened. It is a sad scene to see a once mighty warrior being bypassed by the force of history, and all he can do is to fumble clumsily to reveal he has not learned the art of aging gracefully.
When Hasan Nasrallah came to the defence of Bashar al-Assad's murderous regime in Syria, signs of frailty were all over the old fighter's countenance. He asked Syrians for patience. He admitted mistakes had been made by Syrians in Lebanon. He promised Assad would do reforms. He pleaded for time. Deja vu: For an uncanny moment the Hezbollah fighter sounded and looked like the late Shah of Iran days before his final demise early in 1979: desperate, confused, baffled by the unfolding drama, worriedly out of touch with what was happening around him.
"Hassan Nasrallah," according to an Al Jazeera report on 25 May 2011,"has called on Syrians to support president Bashar al-Assad and enter into dialogue with the government to end weeks of ongoing protests across Syria."
This is a far different cry than when the democratic uprising in Iran started in June 2009 and Nasrallah readily dismissed and ridiculed it as an American plot. These were Arabs up against their corrupt and cruel leaders, not "them Persians" whose money was good but their historic struggles for their civil liberties a plot by the Saudis, the Israelis, and the US.
"Bashar is serious about carrying out reforms," he was now pleading with his audience, "but he has to do them gradually and in a responsible way; he should be given the chance to implement those reforms." When Nasrallah made these remarks more than 1000 Syrian civilians had been gunned down by Bashar Assad's army and security forces, serving the Assad dynasty for about forty years.
|Many Syrians have fled the country after a violent crackdown by the government [AFP]
More criminal atrocities were to follow, forcing Syrians to abandon their own homeland and flee to Turkey. The cruel and gruesome torture and murder of Hamza al-Khateeb was still in the offing, where "in the hands of President Bashar al-Assad's security forces," as reported by Al Jazeera, the 13-year-old boy's "humanity [was] degraded to nothing more than a lump of flesh to beat, burn, torture and defile, until the screaming stopped at last."
Nasrallah, who could not care less for such revolting behavior by his patrons, now for second time in a row, was siding with brutal, vicious tyrants and their criminally insane security forces against the democratic aspirations of their people - once in Iran and now in Syria. A "freedom fighter"? Really? What kind of a "freedom fighter" is that? Forget about the Shah, Hassan Nasrallah now sounded more like President Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) who once famously said about the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza (1896-1956) that he "may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." Hassan Nasrallah too did not care if Khamenei and Assad tortured and murdered their own people - so far as they kept him in business.
"Peaceful Syrian citizens," declared a statement by hundreds of Syrian filmmakers and their colleagues from around the globe, "are being killed today for their demands of basic rights and liberties. It is the same oppression and corruption that kept Syrians prisoners and swallowed their freedom, properties and lives for decades, that is assassinating their bodies and dreams today." Hassan Nasrallah would have none of this, as he had no patience or sympathy for the kidnapped, tortured, raped, and murdered bodies of scores of young Iranians during the civil rights uprising of 2009. A belligerent segment of Arab and American intellectuals (ignorant or indifferent to the historic struggle of Iranians for their civil liberties) sided with him in dismissing the Green Movement in Iran as a Saudi-CIA plot. Shame, everlasting shame on them!
The only language that Hassan Nasrallah understands is the language that keeps him in power, condemning the US, the EU, Israel, and the Saudis - all hitherto truisms that have, thanks to the Green Movement and the Arab Spring, lost their grip on reality even more than Nasrallah.
Nasrallah's predicament with Syria had been moving towards him apace. He has been dillydallying since the commencement of the Arab Spring as to how to calibrate his positions. When Tunisia happened he said,"we must congratulate the Tunisian people on their historic revolution, their struggle, and their uprising."
He thought this was happening only to European allies, and he thought this was good. When Egypt happened, he said, "in Tunis and Egypt, tyrants have gone away... we call on the people of Egypt and the people of Tunis to unite, because division could be a prelude to the resurrection of the ruling regimes." This is when he thought these were happening only to the US allies. Nobody was watching him, but he was already in trouble. How come he never sent any encouraging word to "the people of Iran," when they did precisely what Tunisians and Egyptians had done - rising up against tyranny?
He (and he had his allies on this matter among the leading Arab and non-Arab "left") categorically denounced the Iranian uprising. He sided with identical tyrants like Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak. He said Iran was in the capable hands of his friend "Grand Ayatollah Khamenei". He did not even blink on al-Manar when he said that. It was payback time for him.
When Libya happened, Hassan Nasrallah said, "a group of young men and women rose and they were faced with bullets; war was imposed on the popular revolution. What is taking place in Libya is war imposed by the regime on a people that was peacefully demanding change; this people was forced to defend itself and war broke out in the east and the west, with warplanes, rocket launchers, and artillery. It brought back to our memory the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and all of Israel's wars. Such serious crimes should be condemned and the revolutionary people of Libya should be helped so as to persevere." How splendid!
But what is the difference between Iranian or Syrian and the Libyan people? In Iran and Syria too: "a group of young men and women rose and they were faced with bullets." Were arbitrary arrest, torture, and even rape not "imposed by the regime on a people that was peacefully demanding change" in Iran and then Syria too? Is Iranian or Syrian blood any thinner than Libyan blood in the mighty warrior's estimation? Is there a word for this barefaced hypocrisy in any language? What sort of "resistance" is this - and resistance to what? Resistance to Israeli expansionism by a band of militant thugs maiming and murdering their own people in Syria and Iran? Is this the choice that our people must make?
When Yemen happened, Nasrallah said, "it is not possible to keep silent about killing and oppressing the demonstrators. We praise the steadfastness of the Yemeni people and their commitment to their peaceful movement, although we know that Yemen is full of weapons." But how come it is possible to "keep silent about killing and oppressing the demonstrators" in Iran? No, sorry, he was not silent at all about Iran. He was positively elated and quite verbose that his dear friend Ayatollah Khamenei had managed to oppress those identical demonstrators. As masses of millions of Iranian were pouring into streets calling the presidential election of 2009 a charade and a fraud, Hassan Nasrallah was quick to congratulate Ahmadinejad, calling the result a "great hope to all the mujahedin and resistance who are fighting against the forces of oppression and occupation". As even more millions of people took to streets risking arrest, incarceration, torture, and even cold-blooded murder, Nasrallah assured the world that "Iran is under the authority of the Wali Al Faqih and will pass through this crisis." He never praised "the steadfastness" of the Iranian people "and their commitment to their peaceful movement." Why? What's the difference between Iranians and Yemenis?
|Nasrallah supported protesters in Bahrain but not in Iran or Syria [GALLO/GETTY]
When Bahrain happened, Nasrallah said, "why is the movement [in Bahrain] condemned and the injured accused? Just because they are Shias?... We've always been with the Palestinian people, but the sect of the Palestinian people was never an issue for us. Nobody asked about the confession and sect of the Tunisian and Egyptian peoples; we have an obligation to stand by the downtrodden. Iran stood by the people of Palestine, Tunis, Egypt, and Libya; was this based on secular considerations? I find it very weird to hear some people calling on Egyptians to take to the streets, Libyans to kill Gaddafi, but when Bahrain is involved, their ink dries out, and their voices dampen."
This was indeed very ecumenical of the Hassan Nasrallah. But was his own ink dried and his own voice dampened when Iranians were being clubbed to death, tortured, and even raped by the security forces of his friend "Ayatollah Khamenei?" How come he did not feel obligated to stand by millions of human beings for whom spoke two bona fide Shias, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi? Were they not Muslims, Shias, human beings? And yes, Iranians have "stood by the people of Palestine, Tunis, Egypt, and Libya" - but not because they are Muslim, or Sunnis, or Shias, but based on their shared aspiration for a free and democratic future. Will Hassan Nasrallah have a place in that democratic future, with this kind of record, of siding with criminal thugs that deny and seek to prevent it?
And then Syria happened, and Hasan Nasrallah began stuttering. "First, we should be committed to Syria's stability, security and safety." Syrians' security and safety - or Bashar al-Assad's? Scores of Syrians are being gunned down, tortured, and killed. There is a massive humanitarian crisis on the Syrian-Turkish border, finally forcing Turkey to sever its ties with Syria. Syrians are fleeing their homeland en masse, fearing for their lives from Bashar al-Assad's murderous army. What about their security and safety?
"Second," he said, "We call upon the Syrian people to maintain their regime of resistance, as well as to give way to the Syrian leadership to implement the required reforms and to choose the course of dialogue." Really? Isn't that what Clinton also says about Bahrain? How come if Clinton says it about Bahrain it is bad and imperialistic, but if Hassan Nasrallah says it about Syria it is good and revolutionary - while both Bahrainis and Syrians are being slaughtered by identically corrupt ruling regimes? The magnificent aspect of the Arab Spring is that it exposes the identical hypocrisy of both the US (on Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen) and Hassan Nasrallah (on Iran and Syria).
"Third, we as Lebanese shouldn't interfere in what is going on in Syria, but let the Syrians themselves to deal with the issue." Truly? How come "you as Lebanese" interfere anywhere from Morocco to Iran, from Bahrain to Yemen, but not about Syria? Why? Aren't Syrians humans? If you shoot them do they not bleed? If you torture and mutilate them do they not suffer and die? "Fourth, we should reject any sanctions led by US and the West asking Lebanon to abide by them against Syria, which is the most important goal of [Assistant US Secretary of State Jeffrey] Feltman's recent visit to Lebanon." Why? How come UN resolutions against Israel are good, but UN resolutions against Syria are not good? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Right?
There is an old expression in the film industry, "continuity clerk", which refers to a member of the crew responsible to ensure that there is continuity and consistency - especially in matters of dress, make-up, etc. - in successive shots of a film, particularly when these shots are filmed on different days. The grand Hezbollah leader badly needs a "continuity clerk". You cannot wear a revolutionary garb one day and then a pathetically apologetic disguise another.
That Hassan Nasrallah is not altogether aware of what is happening around him is also evident in the fact that it seems just to have dawned on him that the US is "seeking to hijack the wave of pro-democracy popular uprisings sweeping the Arab world." Of course they are - but what is Hassan Nasrallah doing to safeguard and promote it, siding with Bashar al-Assad and Ali Khamenei? Hassan Nasrallah is now outmaneuvered, checkmated, made redundant by history, by, of all things, a magnificent Arab Spring, in which he has no role, no say, and no decision. Nothing. He could and he did dismiss Iranian uprising and he got away with it. Syria and the rest of the Arab Spring are doing away with him. He has failed the test of history—of knowing when to abandon tyrants benevolent to him for their own reasons but abusive and criminal to their own people.
It is not accidental that Iran's Ahmadinejad is on the same page with Hassan Nasrallah in defending the Syrian regime - for they are all made of the same cloth. What is happening in Syria, Ahmadinejad believes, is a plot by a number of countries in the region, "because Syria is in the frontline of resistance and the Islamic Republic is standing shoulder to shoulder with the Syrian state and nation"? Not so fast. The Syrian state is now murdering the Syrian nation. You cannot be on both sides. Siding with the regime is endorsing its murderous record of killing its nation, as indeed the Islamic Republic, on Ahmadinejad's own watch, has done against Iranians, with Nasrallah's approval.
Ahmadinejad's protestations in support of the Syrian regime, however, should not muddy the clear conception of why the Islamic Republic supports Hamas or Hezbollah. In defending the allocation of funding for Hamas and Hezbollah, the military strategist of the Islamic Republic make no bones about why is it that they support the Palestinian and Lebanese causes. "The Palestinians are not fighting for Palestine," one leading Iranian military strategist is seen recently explaining to a captivated audience, "they are fighting for Iran; the Lebanese are not fighting for Lebanon; they are fighting for Iran. To have the courage to say this and the courage to demonstrate this means to provide a strategic conception [of what we do]." Does Hassan Nasrallah know this, or is he taking advantage of the Islamic Republic the way the Islamic Republic is taking advantage of him. And what do millions of human beings caught in this massive hypocrisy have to do with these political and strategic machinations?
During protests in Iran, when scores of young Iranian men and women were being brutally tortured and killed in the dungeons of the Islamic Republic, Nasrallah was not keeping silent. He was voluminously loquacious in siding with tyranny, exposing his utter and pervasive hypocrisy.
Hamid Dabashi is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.