RSS
Despite the ‘Lebanonization’ of Hezbollah, It Still Wants to Destroy Israel
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addresses his supporters through a screen during a rally commemorating the annual Hezbollah Martyrs’ Day, in Beirut’s southern suburbs. Photo: Reuters/Aziz Taher
Hezbollah began in 1982 as an Islamist organization founded and shaped according to the ideological model of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The organization was founded to establish an Islamist regime in Lebanon and conduct a jihadist war against the enemies of Islam: the West and Israel. Hezbollah gradually “Lebanonized,” meaning it claimed to limit the military struggle to Lebanese territory, integrated into the Lebanese political system, and established an extensive civil infrastructure. This transformation was accompanied by a new discourse stressing its role as defender of Lebanon.
But Hezbollah’s Lebanonization has not in any way diluted or moderated its conception of Israel, with which it believes itself to be in a doomsday war. Hezbollah’s military empowerment since the withdrawal of the IDF in 2000 does not correspond with its discourse about defending Lebanon. Hezbollah’s involvement in the fighting since October 8 is not mere lip service, but a demonstration of its total commitment to what it perceives as its deterministic conflict with Israel.
Hezbollah’s enduring enmity towards Israel reflects the ideological concepts on which it was founded. The organization was established by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, and its establishment might be considered Iran’s only successful exporting of its revolution. The establishment of Hezbollah would also not have been possible had it not been for Baathist Syria, which allowed Iran to operate in Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley. Hafez Assad’s Syria enabled this as part of the “extensions” strategy it adopted after Operation Peace for Galilee, with the clear aim of exhausting the IDF and bringing about its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Iranian patronage has always been a pillar of strength for Hezbollah, but the most significant patronage it enjoyed was that of Syria. Damascus extended its protection to Hezbollah and guaranteed its continued existence as a military organization within the framework of the Ṭaif Agreement of 1989, which brought an end to the second Lebanese civil war. Syria has served for decades as a conduit for the supply of weapons to Hezbollah.
Since the 1980s, as the alliance with Syria tightened, Hezbollah underwent the process of “Lebanonization.” This process had three main elements. The first was the purported limiting of the armed struggle to within Lebanon’s geography, especially against the IDF’s continued presence in southern Lebanon. The second was the establishment of an extensive civilian arm that focused on providing for the needs of Lebanon’s Shiite community. The third was politicization, meaning the establishment of a political branch and integration into Lebanon’s parliamentary system.
Lebanonization did not, however, cause Hezbollah to forget its dual mission, anchored in its Islamist political and religious worldview: the establishment of an Islamist regime according to the model of the Islamic Republic in Iran on the one hand, and the continuation of the armed struggle against Israel on the other.
Hezbollah’s adherence to Islamist ideology, which in this case is distinctly anti-establishment, means striving to replace the sectarian regime with an Islamist one and perpetually bolstering its weapons supplies to support the armed struggle against Israel. Hezbollah made sure to present the IDF’s unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon as a military achievement of the “Islamic resistance in Lebanon” and not as the result of internal considerations by Israeli society. Following the withdrawal, Hezbollah had to place greater emphasis on the Lebanese dimension of its military struggle, and its discourse changed accordingly.
Until the IDF withdrawal, Hezbollah claimed that its military existence was in the name of liberating the soil of an occupied homeland. After the withdrawal, the organization began to stress the doctrine of defense of the homeland against “Israeli aggression,” with its military power aimed at creating a balance of terror between it and Israel.
As a result, Hezbollah engaged in a Lebanese political-national discourse that ostensibly placed its military existence at the heart of the Lebanese national consensus. This was summed up in three words: people, army, and resistance. The concept reflected the deepening of the Lebanonization trend and a real attempt on Hezbollah’s part to endear itself to Lebanese nationals under the pretense that its weapons were intended solely for defense of the Lebanese homeland.
Since May 2000, the doctrine of defense of the Lebanese homeland has been the common discourse among Hezbollah and its supporters in Lebanon. The adoption of this doctrine coincided with a political reorganization and a more prominent integration within the Lebanese political and public spheres. This was reflected in political alliances with Lebanese political parties and movements, especially among Maronite Christians, and the publication of a second political document in 2009 that for the first time declared Hezbollah’s renunciation of its mission to establish an Islamist regime in Lebanon.
As a military organization and a political movement, Hezbollah represents a totalitarian ideological-religious movement whose worldview is the bedrock of its existence. Whatever it may have said during the Lebanonization process, it is still as committed as it ever was to its two overarching original goals: the establishment of an Islamist regime in Lebanon and the continuation of an endless struggle against Israel. Giving up these goals would mean erasing its ideology, which would amount to destroying its existential essence as a totalitarian movement.
By claiming to have renounced its desire for the establishment of an Islamist regime in Lebanon and redefining its formidable arsenal of weapons as intended for defensive purposes, Hezbollah is conducting a sophisticated pragmatic campaign. Its object is first and foremost to neutralize internal opponents who fear a theocracy and to justify the continued possession of a vast store of weapons outside the state’s authority.
The strategy of balance that has characterized Hezbollah since the end of the second civil war remains a powerful statement of the movement’s adherence to its goals. The balance between maintaining the existence of the Lebanese state and continuing to possess an enormous supply of weapons is a practical formula that produces chronic crisis but does not constitute a renunciation of the struggle against Israel. Similarly, the omission of the demand for the establishment of an Islamist regime in Lebanon in no way implies that Hezbollah has renounced its Islamist ideology, as such a move would contradict its very soul.
Hezbollah joined the Israel-Hamas war one day after the Black Sabbath of October 7. Its participation, even on a local scale, so soon after the barbaric attack by the Hamas criminal terrorist organization on Israel, an attack that was conducted primarily against Israeli civilians and without any provocation on Israel’s part, puts Hezbollah’s doctrine of homeland defense into question. Its limited participation in the current fighting against Israel proves that Hezbollah remains faithful to its worldview and the indoctrination that has accompanied it for four decades. Its support of Hamas in its war against Israel shows that the amendment of a founding document or political-pragmatic discourse that takes circumstances into account does not reflect moderation or a fundamental change.
Indeed, Hezbollah’s joining of the fighting proves its adherence to its primary ideology of eternal struggle against Israel. Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, said in his first speech after October 7 that while the time is not yet ripe for an all-out confrontation, he is convinced that day will come. It is highly doubtful that the huge arsenal of weapons Hezbollah has amassed over the past two decades is intended solely for defensive purposes. While it has adapted its discourse to the needs of time and circumstance, no one should be deceived into believing it has lost sight of its ideological totalitarianism.
Hezbollah retains a conviction that it is capable of delivering a crushing blow to Israel. Following the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the scenes of Afghan citizens being crushed under the wheels of airplanes, Nasrallah assured his supporters that such scenes would be repeated at Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. Hezbollah is preparing, as it always has, for the doomsday battle with Israel. Its involvement in the fighting right now, however limited, proves that it remains committed to fulfilling its messianic mission to inflict a decisive defeat on Israel.
The process of Lebanonization has created a deceptive smokescreen of moderation that is entirely lacking in Hezbollah. Instead of trusting in false interpretations of Lebanonization, Israel should focus on Hezbollah’s obsession with military power and unwavering determination to destroy the Jewish State.
Dr. Yusri Khazran is senior lecturer in the Department of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at Shalem College and a research fellow at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University. He received his Ph.D. from Hebrew University, after which he was awarded a Fulbright Fellowship at Harvard University. Dr. Hazran is the author of The Druze Community and the Lebanese State: Between Resistance and Reconciliation (Routledge, 2014). A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Despite the ‘Lebanonization’ of Hezbollah, It Still Wants to Destroy Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Pledges of Unity in Beijing Mask Deep Skepticism Among Iran, China, Russia
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Chinese President Xi Jinping shake hands as they meet, in Beijing, China, Sept. 2, 2025. Photo: Iran’s Presidential website/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian traveled to Beijing on Tuesday, joining Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin as the three nations aim to project a united front against the West, even as the stability of their partnership remains uncertain.
Iranian and Russian officials, along with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, will attend Beijing’s military parade this week to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.
The high-profile gathering comes after Pezeshkian and Putin held talks in China on Monday on the sidelines of the 25th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin.
During a joint press conference, the Iranian president hailed Tehran’s cooperation with Moscow as “highly valuable,” adding that continued implementation of their 20-year treaty signed earlier this year would further strengthen ties and expand collaboration.
Putin also noted that the relationship between the two countries is “growing increasingly friendly and expanding” amid mounting pressure and sanctions from Western countries.
However, these remarks come after an Iranian official accused Russia without evidence of providing intelligence to Israel during the 12-day Middle Eastern war in June which allegedly helped the Jewish state target and destroy Iran’s air defense systems.
Mohammad Sadr, a member of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council and close adviser to former President Mohammad Khatami, claimed Israel’s precise strikes on Iranian air defense systems were suspicious.
He noted Russia’s refusal to support Iran during the war, saying that Moscow had shown a “bias in favor of Israel” and that the recent conflict demonstrated the “strategic agreement with Russia is nonsense.”
“This war proved that the strategic alliance with Moscow is worthless,” Sadr said during an interview with BBC Persian, referring to the 12-day war between Iran and Israel.
“We must not think that Russia will come to Iran’s aid when the time comes,” he continued.
Earlier this year, Moscow and Tehran signed a 20-year strategic partnership agreement, further strengthening military ties between the two countries.
According to Janatan Sayeh, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, DC-based think tank, Iran views all partnerships with deep suspicion, and its relationship with Russia is no exception.
“Tehran has long accused Moscow of enabling Israeli strikes against its assets in Syria — well before Assad’s collapse — by deliberately switching off its S-400 systems,” Sayeh told The Algemeiner, referring to recently deposed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian air defense systems.
“The Moscow–Tehran relationship is less an alliance in the traditional sense than a transactional partnership,” he continued. “At this stage, it is unclear whether either side truly benefits from the arrangement.”
With European powers now formally pursuing the reimposition of UN sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, Sayeh explained that the Iran-Russia partnership is further complicated, as the restrictions will once again limit arms sales and nuclear-related trade with the Islamic Republic.
“This may drive the regime to lean more heavily on Beijing, and some reports suggest it already has,” Sayeh told The Algemeiner.
According to some reports, China may be helping Iran rebuild its decimated air defenses following the 12-day war with Israel.
“The unresolved question is whether China views Tehran as a worthwhile bet, one worth risking violations of UN sanctions for, or whether it is instead watching Iran’s overlapping crises of water shortages, power outages, and economic decline with caution, skeptical of openly extending support,” he continued.
China is the largest importer of Iranian oil, with nearly 90 percent of Iran’s crude and condensate exports going to Beijing. The two sides also recently signed a 25-year cooperation agreement, held joint naval drills, and continued to trade Iranian oil despite US sanctions.
At the SCO summit in Tianjin earlier this week, Tehran described its ties with China as “flourishing,” pointing to a strategic pact similar to the one it signed with Russia.
“The 25-year agreement with China is under implementation and progressing. Our bilateral relations are very good and expanding. We value our relationship with China,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said during a press conference.
According to Jack Burnham, a research analyst at FDD, China’s assistance to Iran reflects Beijing’s long-standing practice of offering support when convenient and remaining discreet when tensions escalate.
“Still set firmly on its back foot, the [Iranian] regime may be looking for any possible friend in its foxhole, but the 12-day war should have convinced Tehran that Beijing only arrives when the weather is fair and risks tolerable,” Burnham told The Algemeiner.
After European countries moved to begin the process of reimposing UN sanctions on Tehran last week, China and Russia sided with Iran in opposing the move, once again favoring cautious diplomacy over direct support for their supposed partner.
In a letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Chinese, Russian, and Iranian foreign ministers condemned Britain, France, and Germany’s attempt to restore economic sanctions under the “snapback mechanism,” calling the move “legally and procedurally flawed.”
Our joint letter with my colleagues, the Foreign Ministers of China and Russia, signed in Tianjin reflects the firm position that the European attempt to invoke “snapback” is legally baseless and politically destructive. By declaring the E3’s move null and void, we have placed on… pic.twitter.com/YC4LKNkxMX
— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) September 1, 2025
Both China and Russia are signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, along with the three European countries known as the E3.
In 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the nuclear agreement.
The US and E3 have sought to reignite talks aimed at reaching a new nuclear agreement following Israeli and US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in June.
RSS
Teachers Unions Across US Under Fire for Alleged Antisemitism
National Education Association president Becky Pringle leads hundreds of demonstrators in chants during a rally to end US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, in Washington, DC, US, on, June 9, 2025. Photo: Allison Bailey/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect
Teachers unions across the United States have come under intense scrutiny from both Jewish activists and federal lawmakers for allegedly promoting antisemitic ideas and fostering a hostile environment toward their Jewish members.
The US House Committee on Education and the Workforce, for example, has opened an investigation into the National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest teachers union, over allegations that its policies and materials discriminate against Jewish members.
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), the committee’s chairman, sent a letter late last month to NEA President Becky Pringle demanding documents tied to what he described as “antisemitic content” in the union’s 2025 handbook and its decision to sever ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) over its support for Israel.
“The NEA’s 2025 handbook … contains passages and priorities that are hostile towards the Jewish people,” Walberg wrote, citing language that he said downplays the uniquely Jewish suffering of the Holocaust and promotes lessons on the so-called Palestinian “nakba,” the Arabic term for “catastrophe” used by Palestinians and anti-Israel activists to refer to the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
In July, the NEA refused to adopt as policy a ban on the ADL voted for by the group’s Representative Assembly during an annual conference.
“The National Education Association stands firmly for every student and educator, of every race, religion, and ethnicity, and we unequivocally reject antisemitism,” the NEA told JNS in response to Walberg’s letter. “We have fought against all kinds of hate, including antisemitism, throughout our history and remain focused on ensuring the safety of Jewish students and educators.”
The congressional probe comes as teachers unions across the country face mounting criticism from Jewish educators and civil rights advocates who say the organizations are failing to protect them, and in some cases are actively fostering hostility.
In Massachusetts, the Zionist Organization of America filed a sweeping civil rights complaint last week against the Massachusetts Teachers Association, accusing the organization of creating a discriminatory environment. The filing cites union-distributed images and posters viewed as antisemitic, including one showing a dollar bill folded into the shape of a Star of David and another reading “Zionists [Expletive] Off.” Some Jewish educators say they have already left the MTA over its stance.
In New York, meanwhile, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) has come under fire from its own Jewish members for their responses to antisemitic incidents in schools. The criticisms stem in part from an incident at Hillcrest High School, where a Jewish teacher was reportedly forced to lock herself in an office during an anti-Israel protest. Union critics also blasted the UFT for endorsing New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, a supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel who has been accused of antisemitism.
“How can we feel safe? When our teachers get attacked, our union says little and does nothing. When our protected rights are infringed upon, our union says little and does nothing. When they need us, they pretend we matter, and when they don’t, they ignore our concerns,” Moshe Spern, head of the United Jewish Teachers caucus, said last week at an “End Jew Hatred” rally, according to the New York Post.
Spern noted that more than 150 teachers are moving to cancel their union dues in protest.
RSS
Iran’s Executions in August Jump 70 Percent Compared to Previous Year as Rights Groups Warn of Troubling Surge
Illustrative: A February 2023 protest in Washington, DC calling for an end to executions and human rights violations in Iran. Photo: Reuters/ Bryan Olin Dozier
The Islamic regime in Iran accelerated its execution machine last month, killing at least 152 prisoners according to the Hengaw Organization for Human Rights.
The figure represents a surge of 70 percent compared to the 94 executions conducted in August 2024.
While Hengaw has identified 148 of those killed last month, four individuals remain unknown. Two people killed include Roozbeh Vadi, alleged to have engaged in “espionage for Israel,” and Mehdi Asgharzadeh, an alleged ISIS member. Iran executed at least five women for murder and one woman on drug charges.
According to Hengaw, two or more of the executions took place in public in Beyram and Kordkuy, cities in the country’s southern and northern provinces, respectively.
On Monday, the Human Rights Activist News Agency (HRANA) released a report of human rights violations in Iran during August, noting that the number of executions had increased 40 percent compared to June and July, bringing the total execution count to 837 for the year. In comparison, the Islamic regime executed 930 people for the entire year of 2024.
HRANA broke down last month’s executions by charges, finding 87 drug offenses, 60 murder charges, two rapes, one for security offenses, and one person’s offenses are unknown. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, during the first half of 2025, nearly half of Iran’s executions targeted those convicted over drugs.
Iran killed one person on the charge of “corruption on earth,” which translates from the Koranic term “mofsed-e fel-arz” (مفسد فی الارض), a vague concept that Islamic judges have often applied toward political dissidents, alleged spies, or religious converts.
One tool that HRANA identifies Iran regularly deploying in its judicial system is forced confessions.
“Extracting forced confessions from political and ideological defendants, followed by broadcasting them on state television, is one of the regime’s routine practices against its opponents,” the human rights group stated. “In 2024, HRANA documented 28 cases of forced confessions. This month as well, Iran’s state television aired the forced confessions of a group of Christian converts.”
HRANA also found 73 arrests last month for citizens speaking out about their political views and beliefs; in addition, the state sentenced 27 people to 658 months in prison, 132 months of exile, and 130 lashes for speech offenses.
United Nations spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani warned last week that the human rights situation in Iran could be even worse than documented figures suggested.
“The high number of executions indicates a systematic pattern of using the death penalty as a tool of state intimidation, with disproportionate targeting of ethnic minorities and migrants,” Shamdasani said. “Public executions add an extra layer of outrage upon human dignity … not only on the dignity of the people concerned, the people who are executed, but also on all those who have to bear witness”
Shamdasani warned that “the psychological trauma of bearing witness to somebody being hanged in public, particularly for children, is unacceptable.” She argued that the death penalty “should never be imposed for conduct that is protected under international human rights law.”
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Saturday announced the capture of eight people accused of aiding Israel’s Mossad espionage agency. During Iran’s 12-day war with Israel in June, police arrested as many as 21,000 individuals.
Australia announced the expulsion of Iran’s ambassador on Aug. 26, giving the diplomat seven days to leave following the discovery that the Islamic regime had directed antisemitic terrorism against the country’s Jews.
“These were extraordinary and dangerous acts of aggression orchestrated by a foreign nation on Australian soil,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. “They were attempts to undermine social cohesion and sow discord in our community.”
Mike Burgess, director general of Australia’s security agency, said “they’re just using cut-outs, including people who are criminals and members of organized crime gangs to do their bidding or direct their bidding,”
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Aug. 24 that “they want Iran to be obedient to America. The Iranian nation will stand with all of its power against those who have such erroneous expectations … People who ask us not to issue slogans against the US … to have direct negotiations with the US only see appearances … This issue is unsolvable.”