In his first interview with Al Mayadeen since assuming the leadership of Hezbollah, Sheikh Naim Qassem spoke to Al Mayadeen‘s chairman of the board of directors, Mr. Ghassan Ben Jeddou, offering a detailed account of the Resistance’s strategic decision to enter the ongoing war on Gaza through a “support battle” rather than a full-scale war.
Sheikh Qassem described the move as the product of collective deliberation within Hezbollah’s Shura Council, marking a pivotal moment in the group’s evolving response to the Israeli occupation’s war on Gaza. Sheikh Qassem revealed that Hezbollah’s Shura Council convened and unanimously decided to enter the support battle for Gaza. He emphasized that this decision was not taken lightly nor through phone calls. “This kind of decision cannot be made via phone calls or casual communications. It required an urgent in-person meeting,” he said, adding that the decision came two days after the start of the war, while Hezbollah had already begun launching attacks from Shebaa Farms on October 8.
Responding to the question of why Hezbollah chose a limited support operation rather than an all-out war, Sheikh Qassem stated that a full-scale war demands significant prior preparations. “The outcome of a full war is predictable. It requires preparedness that simply wasn’t available,” he said. Instead, Hezbollah opted for a measured approach. “We had to enter the battle with limited support and observe developments closely. Based on how things evolved, we could make a clearer choice,” Sheikh Qassem explained.
Goals of engagement in support operation
Weeks into the operation, the Shura Council solidified its decision to pursue a support war rather than a comprehensive one. According to Sheikh Qassem, this approach successfully achieved Hezbollah’s strategic objectives without escalating into full-scale conflict.
Sheikh Qassem outlined three primary goals behind Hezbollah’s engagement: Diverting the Israeli occupation forces: “We aimed to draw a significant number of Israeli forces to northern occupied Palestine,” he said; creating social pressure: Hezbollah sought to force the evacuation of Israeli settlers from the north, thereby triggering a social, economic, and security crisis; inflicting casualties: “The more soldiers we kill, the more we push Israel closer to defeat,” Sheikh Qassem asserted.
These tactics, he said, helped deplete Israeli military capabilities near Gaza and the surrounding areas, easing pressure on the besieged population in the Strip. “It also sends a clear message to the Israelis that they are facing a two-front war, and that it is in their interest to find a solution and bring this to an end,” he added.
No prior coordination
Sheikh Qassem denied that Hezbollah had any prior coordination with Hamas before the October 7 operation. “We simply didn’t know. If we weren’t aware, how could we join a comprehensive war from the start?” he said.
He disclosed that Hezbollah later received a message from the commander of Hamas’ military wing, martyr Mohammed Deif, via a Lebanese intermediary. Sheikh Qassem added that discussions were held in Beirut with senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya and his delegation during their visit. According to Sheikh Qassem, both Hezbollah and Palestinian factions, including in a meeting with the late Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, reached a shared conclusion: the support operation was sufficient to serve the resistance’s broader aims.
“For two months, we assessed whether this level of support was enough. But we came to see that the Israeli aggression was extreme, supported by new rules of engagement and US backing,” he said. “Doing more than support would not have changed the outcome.”
Sheikh Qassem clarified that, based on his information, Iran was not informed in advance of Hamas’ plans. “In fact, even parts of Hamas’ leadership abroad weren’t aware,” he noted. Still, he stressed that Iran’s unwavering support for the Palestinian cause, militarily, financially, politically, and even through intelligence and media, has continued uninterrupted. “Whether they told us or not, our stance remains firm in supporting Palestine, especially during this strategic phase of the al-Aqsa Flood,” he said.
Breaches that affected Hezbollah being investigated
In the second installment of his exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem addressed the recent security breaches that shook the organization, revealing ongoing internal investigations and new details about the scope and nature of the infiltration.
Sheikh Qassem confirmed that a central investigative committee had been formed and was still working, alongside several subcommittees examining specific aspects of the breach, including the booby-trapped pagers, the location of Sayyed Nasrallah’s assassination, and the assassination of Sayyed Hashem Safieddine. He said various monitoring and investigation points had also been established.
Rigged pagers, untraceable explosives
On the issue of the rigged pagers, Sheikh Qassem revealed that investigations uncovered a serious vulnerability in the procurement process over the year to year and a half leading up to the purchase. “We did not know the supply chain had been exposed. With the means available to us, we could not detect the presence of explosives,” he admitted. He explained that the type of explosive device used inside the pager was highly advanced and undetectable by standard methods. “This could be seen as a failure, or as a limitation of our capabilities,” he said.
In the days just before the pager explosion, Hezbollah’s team had already begun to suspect a malfunction. “There were efforts to examine the pager differently, including attempts to break it open, which were prompted by some anomalies that raised questions,” Sheikh Qassem noted.
As to whether the Israeli regime detonated the device out of fear it might be discovered, he said, “That’s an Israeli assessment. Perhaps they feared we were close to exposing it.”
Massive surveillance, not human espionage
Sheikh Qassem also acknowledged a serious gap in Hezbollah’s awareness of the scale of Israeli surveillance, particularly through electronic and aerial means. He said Hezbollah had received reports indicating possible wiretapping, but “we did not realize the extent, that it was near-total and very extensive.”
He said “Israel” has been collecting data through aerial surveillance over a 17-year period, documenting geographical and infrastructural changes. “We didn’t have the capacity to grasp how deep Israel’s information gathering had gone,” Sheikh Qassem admitted.
In light of this, Sheikh Qassem argued that human espionage now plays a secondary role compared to the technological intelligence capabilities deployed by Israel. “Frankly speaking, the human breach appears very limited compared to the immense volume of data collected through surveillance and drones,” he said.
He firmly denied any evidence of a widespread human infiltration within Hezbollah’s ranks. “There is no indication of any significant breach involving core figures or senior commanders,” he stressed, pledging transparency. “If we find there has been human penetration, I will speak publicly and disclose the level of that breach.”
1,500 bugged devices intercepted
Sheikh Qassem also disclosed that Hezbollah intercepted a shipment of roughly 1,500 bugged pager devices in Turkiye. The discovery was made after the initial pager explosion. Hezbollah immediately contacted Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati, who in turn reached out to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, requesting the devices be destroyed. “This issue was addressed swiftly after the explosion,” Sheikh Qassem said.
As for speculation that similarly rigged military armor or protective gear may have been intended for Hezbollah fighters, Sheikh Qassem stated: “I have no information to confirm that.”
Sheikh Qassem addressed the future of the party following months of war and the loss of top leaders, including the late Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. He emphasized resilience, determination, and the readiness to confront any future Israeli aggression.
‘A people that cannot be defeated’
Sheikh Qassem reassured supporters that Hezbollah, despite the severe blows it had endured, is not a defeated force. “A people like this, an Ummah like this, a party and resistance like this, cannot be defeated,” he declared. “Do you expect anything less than for us to remain present, strong, and capable of shaping the future we choose?”
Referring to the attacks that targeted Hezbollah’s advanced capabilities, including the bugged pagers and communications systems, as well as the assassination of Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Sayyed Hashem Safieddine, and a group of top commanders and lower-ranking officers, Sheikh Qassem said the Israeli occupation had assumed Hezbollah would collapse. “And yet, here we are, back on our feet, engaged in fierce battle, and forcing Israel to agree to a ceasefire. What does that say?” he asked.
He listed what he called the elements of victory: Hezbollah’s continued operations, the Israeli failure to penetrate deeper into Lebanese territory or reach Beirut or Sidon, and the preservation of Lebanese unity. “They failed to spark internal strife. They failed to destroy the party. They failed to achieve their objectives,” he affirmed.
‘Our patience has limits’
Commenting on the Israeli occupation’s expanding aggression, including recent attacks on Beirut’s southern suburb, Sheikh Qassem warned that Hezbollah’s patience was not unlimited. “Resistance will not wait forever. There are limits,” he stated. While he did not disclose timing or methods, he underscored that when the decision is made, “there is no third option between victory and martyrdom. We do not have surrender as an option.”
He attributed the Israeli occupation’s escalated operations to US policy, saying Washington hopes to gain through diplomacy what it failed to achieve militarily. “Their strategy is: ‘Let’s use diplomacy to get what we couldn’t in war.’ So the Americans apply pressure through Israel,” he said.
Sheikh Qassem praised Lebanese state leaders for their unified position. “I salute President Joseph Aoun, Speaker Nabih Berri, and all officials involved in what has become a remarkable display of national unity.”
Martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
In deeply personal remarks, Sheikh Qassem reflected on the loss of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, calling it a devastating shock not only to the public but also to Hezbollah’s leadership. “His martyrdom was not only unexpected to the world, it was unexpected for us,” he said. “If you had asked me before, I would have said all of us might fall before Sayyed [Nasrallah] does. That’s how strong, courageous, and divinely guided he was.”
“It was not easy to imagine his departure,” he added. “Perhaps this was part of a divine secret. We do not know when our time comes. But he earned his rest, and he rose to the highest rank. We consider martyrdom the greatest honor, and he received the highest honor.”
Sheikh Qassem described the moment he learned of the assassination. “At first, I was in denial. I thought maybe the news wasn’t true, maybe he wasn’t hit, maybe he was still alive somewhere. But the next day, the brothers confirmed the body had been recovered. That’s when the truth settled in.”
The greatest challenge now, he said, is carrying on in the absence of a leader whose strength, tone, energy, and stance were irreplaceable. “We don’t cry because he’s gone, we cry because we don’t know how to compensate for what we’ve lost,” Sheikh Qassem said. “But martyrdom doesn’t stop the path; it nourishes it.”
“We are now charged with continuing this mission at the level of his sacrifice. With sincerity and resolve, we ask God to help us carry this responsibility.”
Assuming the leadership of Hezbollah
Sheikh Qassem opened up about the tense days following the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, recounting his first public appearance, the burdens of leadership, and how Hezbollah transitioned into a new command structure while under fire.
After the assassination of Sayyed Hashem Safieddine, Sheikh Qassem formally assumed the role of Secretary General, with direct responsibility for overseeing Hezbollah’s military operations. He said that shortly after taking the helm, he was asked by an Iranian military leader and a Lebanese commander outside Hezbollah how he would manage a military campaign.
Sheikh Qassem explained that the Secretary-General is, by party structure, also the head of the Jihadi Council, responsible for directing military affairs. “Now that I was in this position, I had to intensify communication with relevant commanders and better understand operational details,” he said.
He laid out three key qualifications for leading Hezbollah and its resistance project: The ability to organize and lead effectively, a deep understanding of Hezbollah’s mission and strategic vision, and familiarity with the party’s structure, resources, and internal workings. “All of these were present,” he affirmed, noting that he had served as deputy for 32 years and was an active member of the Shura Council throughout.
Process of making military decisions
Sheikh Qassem offered a rare insight into Hezbollah’s military decision-making process, emphasizing that all major decisions, from naming unit leaders to launching operations, are made collectively within the Shura Council. “There is no appointment without deep discussion.”
He added that proposed battle scenarios, such as the Qalamoun campaign, Hezbollah’s entry into Syria, or decisions to retaliate against Israeli actions, are always brought before the council. “We might say: this is our proposal, the Jihadi Council recommends this course. Should we strike this way? Launch a drone? Fire a rocket? All of this goes through internal deliberation,” he said.
Sheikh Qassem stressed that Hezbollah continued to function in an organized fashion even amid heavy attacks. “Hezbollah was run as if it still had a secretary general. No one outside the leadership was making the decisions.”
He detailed how operational decisions were made for each escalation. “When Tel Aviv was struck, that had its own directive. When the strike hit Netanyahu’s residence, that required a specific order. Even what the enemy calls ‘Black Sunday’ on November 24, 370 rockets and drones in one day, that too was based on a formal decision.”
The Tel Aviv strike: Meticulously coordinated
Sheikh Qassem emphasized that the strike on Tel Aviv was not spontaneous but the result of deliberate planning and leadership oversight. “The Secretary-General was following developments closely through the military command,” he said, referring to martyr Sayyed Nasrallah, who remained engaged in strategic oversight until the last moment.
He described the military command structure at the time of the strike as fully intact. “Every position in the military command was occupied. No seat was left vacant,” he stated, adding that contingency plans were implemented quickly after leadership losses.
Sheikh Qassem acknowledged that Iran had provided consultations, for which he expressed gratitude, but stressed that the decisions came from Hezbollah’s own organizational framework. “While we appreciate the Iranian advice, the decisions related to our military structure were made internally,” he noted.
He cited a specific instance to illustrate the level of coordination: the timing of his third public speech, which was immediately followed by the Tel Aviv strike. “How could the two occur back-to-back unless there was a detailed, prearranged plan?” he asked rhetorically.
‘Legendary resilience’ on the support front
Reflecting on the battlefield performance, Sheikh Qassem described the front as having exhibited “legendary resilience,” which he attributed to two main components. “First, the young fighters who were stationed there: they knew what they were doing and held their ground even if they were cut off from communication. They achieved something heroic,” he said.
“The second component was the external support, what we call the bombardment,” he added, referring to the salvoes of missiles and drones launched by Hezbollah in support of frontline units. He assured the public that even in the most difficult moments, Hezbollah maintained an active and coordinated presence. “Until the very last moment, fighters were reaching positions like the southern town of Khiam,” he revealed. “There were places we couldn’t reach, yes, but not everything was severed.”
Asked whether Hezbollah still possessed the human and non-human capabilities needed to continue fighting, Sheikh Qassem declined to disclose numbers or percentages related to losses or remaining strength. Instead, he offered a concise yet firm assurance: “Hezbollah is rebuilding, recovering, and ready now.”
He added, “If Israel were to attack, we would not stand by and watch; we would fight.”
Regarding claims that 500 of Hezbollah’s weapons storage sites south of the Litani River had been destroyed, Sheikh Qassem replied: “They’re referring to what they saw south of the Litani. But the country is vast,” declining to elaborate further.
Why Hezbollah accepted a ceasefire
Sheikh Qassem revisited discussions that took place even before the war began, noting that martyr Sayyed Nasrallah had publicly stated Hezbollah was not seeking war. A French-American proposal for a 21-day ceasefire in Lebanon, separate from Gaza, was already circulating well before the broader conflict erupted.
According to Qassem, on September 25, a joint French-American statement outlined the proposal. “As media coverage and diplomatic discussions unfolded, Sayyed Nasrallah informed Speaker Nabih Berri through (Hezbollah MP) Hussein Khalil that Hezbollah was open to the idea of a ceasefire, depending on how the proposal could be improved through negotiations,” he explained.
But just two days later, Sayyed Nasrallah was assassinated, and the situation changed dramatically. Hezbollah launched what it later named Operation People of Might in response to the Israeli escalation. Sheikh Qassem disclosed that the name was suggested in part by martyr Mohammad Afif, who had texted Sheikh Qassem with a list of proposed titles.
He stressed that Hezbollah had never made a decision to enter a full-scale war, only to retaliate for Israeli aggression. “If the enemy stops, we are ready to stop. We didn’t start the war; they did,” he said.
Avoiding a war of attrition
Sheikh Qassem explained that the military campaign had succeeded in halting the Israeli occupation’s advance and preventing it from achieving its objectives. Prolonging the conflict further, he argued, would have led to a war of attrition with no strategic gain. “At that point, the battle risked becoming aimless, and we would have ended up at the negotiating table anyway,” he said. “So, on November 24, we agreed to a ceasefire because the enemy had also accepted it.”
The agreement was facilitated by US envoy Amos Hochstein, who presented a draft to Speaker Nabih Berri. Hezbollah reviewed the proposal, submitted amendments through Berri, and the final agreement was reached with unanimous approval from Hezbollah’s Shura Council.
Qassem noted that Hezbollah’s front-line commanders also supported the deal. “They said this was the right proposal at the right time, after we had reached the point of attrition.”
Sheikh Naim Qassem firmly rejected two prevailing narratives surrounding the movement’s decision to accept a ceasefire with the Israeli regime: that Iran pressured Hezbollah into the agreement, and that the central leadership was unaware of the heroic endurance being demonstrated by fighters on the southern front.
Sheikh Qassem stressed: “How could a ceasefire go into effect at 4 o’clock, and everyone from the frontlines to the rear immediately comply, unless there’s a connected command chain and a decision being executed?” He emphasized that Hezbollah’s military discipline disproved the claim of disconnection with field units.
On the role of Iran, Qassem was equally clear: “Iran never asked us to agree to a ceasefire. We informed them of our decision, but it was entirely ours. It was a Lebanese decision, taken by Hezbollah and Amal. Even the Lebanese state accepted the agreement through indirect negotiations.”
Iran’s calculated non-intervention
Sheikh Qassem acknowledged that at the outset of the Gaza war, Hezbollah had moved independently to begin its support operations based on its own assessment of capabilities and strategic timing. Although some within the Palestinian factions initially felt the support was insufficient, they later accepted its value.
As for Iran’s role in the broader regional war, Sheikh Qassem pointed to Tehran’s calculated restraint: “Iran understood that direct entry into the war would pull the United States into a confrontation with Tehran, giving Israel exactly what it wanted, a larger war with US backing.”
Instead, Iran chose to provide critical financial, military, political, and media support across the Axis of Resistance. “Iran did everything it could and more,” said Qassem. “We never asked Iran to participate in the war, and it did not need to be asked. Its support is the foundation of our resilience, and that of the entire resistance.”
He stressed that direct military engagement is not the only form of meaningful support: “Participation comes in many forms. Iran did what mattered most, and it was deeply effective.”
The Leader of the Revolution’s personal involvement
Sheikh Qassem also revealed the degree of attention Iranian Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei devoted to the situation in Gaza and Lebanon. “The Leader was receiving daily reports from the IRGC, Iranian intelligence, and media, and was actively following developments. He urged his officials to give support, stay engaged, and stand by us,” Qassem said.
“What more could we ask for?” he added. “The stream kept on flowing even if some of the canals got damaged. But if the source dries up, we have a real problem. And the source, Imam Khamenei’s commitment, remains steadfast.”
In a candid assessment of the regional landscape, Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem described the collapse of the Syrian government as a “definite loss” for the Axis of Resistance, noting that Syria once served as a vital logistical and political artery for armed Palestinian groups and resistance movements.
Syria’s Strategic Role Before the Collapse
Sheikh Qassem stated, “What happened in Syria was certainly a loss for the Axis of Resistance because Syria was a route for military support,” recalling the era when Damascus offered concrete assistance to Palestinian factions and facilitated the transfer of weapons and supplies.
He added that the Syrian government, prior to its downfall, had a clear political stance aligned against the Israeli occupation, which amplified its value to the Axis of Resistance. The collapse of that role, he said, had ripple effects not only in Lebanon but also in Gaza, where resistance forces had relied on Syrian backing in various forms.
The Hezbollah leader expressed uncertainty regarding Syria’s political future:
“We still cannot clearly read what the shape of the future Syrian system will be,” he said, raising critical questions about whether the country will emerge as an inclusive political order or fall under the control of a single faction that sidelines other communities and movements. Sheikh Qassem also warned of lingering instability: “Thousands of Alawites and others were killed by groups connected to the regime. This poses a serious threat to any efforts at rebuilding a stable national framework.”
Despite Hezbollah’s historic alliance with Syria, Sheikh Qassem clarified that the organization has “no connection to the internal situation in Syria” following the regime’s collapse, but he hoped Syrians would ultimately form a unified and independent government that stands against the Israeli occupation.
Normalization with the Israeli occupation
Turning to recent signs of Syrian normalization with the Israeli regime, Sheikh Qassem issued a stern warning: “Such steps are extremely dangerous,” emphasizing that any move by Syria to engage with the Israeli occupation would be viewed as a betrayal of its resistance legacy. He expressed confidence, however, in the Syrian people: “Our trust in the Syrian people is high. We believe they will reject normalization, but how they do that is their responsibility, not ours.”
Sheikh Qassem reiterated Hezbollah’s consistent opposition to normalization, whether by Syria or other Arab regimes: “We have always opposed normalization. Israel will not stop its aggression just because someone shakes hands with it. That’s an illusion.” He criticized the continued Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and the constant strikes inside Syria, noting that the Zionist regime has “taken 600 square kilometers of Syrian territory and stripped the Syrian army of much of its military capacity, yet its demands and attacks never cease.”
‘Israel’ is not to be trusted
Sheikh Qassem concluded with a stark reminder: “Israel is a predatory entity. It’s expansionist, insatiable, and criminal. It has no problem committing acts of mass killing. It is a rampaging beast backed by the greatest tyrant, the United States.”
His remarks encapsulate Hezbollah’s long-held view that the only viable approach to the Israeli occupation is resistance, not appeasement or normalization and that any regional actor entertaining otherwise is playing with fire.
In his continued commentary on regional developments, Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem firmly rejected any notion that the party is involved in shaping or influencing Syria’s internal resistance landscape, stressing that Hezbollah opposes normalization with the Israeli occupation in principle, but would not interfere directly in Syria’s domestic decisions.
Hezbollah opposes normalization, plays no role in Syria
When asked if Hezbollah’s opposition to normalization was purely theoretical or would involve practical efforts inside Syria, Sheikh Qassem replied: “We will not intervene on the ground to try to change the direction of the Syrian regime. We have no relation to that. We are against normalization in theory.”
He further clarified that Hezbollah has no ties to any current Syrian groups claiming the mantle of resistance: “Even those who now call themselves ‘the Resistance’ or ‘the People of Valor’, maybe they liked the name or someone suggested it, but we have no connection to them. We have no organized resistance project inside Syria.”
He added that even during earlier border disturbances in Lebanon’s Hermel region, Hezbollah explicitly distanced itself from the events and coordinated with the Lebanese Army to ensure state control.
Sheikh Qassem stressed Hezbollah’s complete detachment from both the Syrian regime and any armed groups active within the country. “We are not involved on the borders, that’s the army’s responsibility. We’re also not involved in the coastal events in Syria, nor in determining the nature of Syria’s regime or whether a resistance exists there.”
He reiterated that Hezbollah’s stance toward Syria is expressed only in political terms, emphasizing: “The responsibility lies with the Syrian people; they make the decisions.”
No direct contact with new Syrian authorities
On whether any contact had occurred with the new Syrian administration, Sheikh Qassem said: “There was no direct communication. There were some very limited, indirect attempts by ground-based groups, but they didn’t lead anywhere.” He revealed that in the immediate aftermath of the Assad regime’s fall, some Hezbollah-affiliated individuals with ties to other groups initiated informal conversations, but those efforts quickly stalled, and no meaningful dialogue emerged.
Sheikh Qassem addressed growing speculation about the potential for Syria’s new rulers to be used as a tool against Hezbollah: “We have the right to be cautious. We’ve received reports from both Western and Arab countries suggesting that such ideas exist, that someone wants the new Syrian regime to serve a role in destabilizing Lebanon.”
He warned Lebanese officials to be vigilant: “Some countries speak positively to Lebanon but offer nothing in return. Meanwhile, they hope to use Syria as leverage against us.” He added that certain regional and international powers are exploring ways to resurrect past models of Syrian dominance over Lebanon, albeit in a different guise. “As Syria once controlled Lebanon in various ways and sometimes served foreign agendas, some actors are looking to repeat that experience with a new formula.”
Without naming specific states, Sheikh Qassem underscored the importance of political awareness: “We hope these ideas remain theoretical and are never implemented. Lebanese political leaders must stay alert to those who offer words without action.”
Hezbollah’s Qassem: Attack on Hezbollah Is an Attack on Lebanon Itself
Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem stressed that the current political pressure facing the party is not merely targeted at Hezbollah but constitutes a broader assault on Lebanon’s sovereignty and its national fabric.
“The current stance is not against Hezbollah, but against the Shiites and against Lebanon itself,” Qassem declared, pushing back against narratives framing the political crisis as a partisan conflict.
He praised Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri for his steadfastness, calling him “a man known for taking positions worthy of pride,” highlighting Berri’s commitment to Shiite unity, national unity, and the broader Islamic cause.
“Sheikh Qassem warned that calls to disarm Hezbollah align with Israeli demands and aim to strip Lebanon of its only real source of strength: its resistance.”
“Lebanon’s strength lies in its people, its army, and its resistance. Anyone advocating to disarm the resistance is, in effect, weakening the entire country,” he said.
Existential Threat to Lebanese Shiites?
When asked whether Lebanon’s Shiite community is under existential threat, Qassem responded affirmatively, noting that “there are those who believe that elections and national governance can proceed without the Shiite sect’s participation.”
He cautioned that without Hezbollah’s deterrent power, “Israel” could expand its aggression into southern Lebanon, posing a direct danger to Shiite-populated areas.
“When they say they want a Shiite MP in parliament who doesn’t belong to Amal or Hezbollah, their aim is to eliminate both. We are one family, one land, one resistance,” Qassem stated, defending Speaker Berri’s firm stance under regional and Western pressure.
He emphasized that while there is indeed a looming existential threat, the Shiite community is not powerless:
“Let no one think we are weak. We are strong by God, and our resilience, sacrifices, and steadfastness are what keep Lebanon standing.”
Hezbollah’s Relations with Internal Political Parties
Regarding inter-party relations, Sheikh Qassem accused the Lebanese Forces party of aligning ideologically with “Israel” and obstructing reconciliation. In contrast, he revealed that Hezbollah maintains intermittent and discreet dialogue with the Kataeb Party and ongoing, albeit infrequent, communication with the Future Movement.
He lamented that the absence of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri has weakened the Future Movement’s political structure, but noted that Hezbollah’s past coordination with Hariri was substantial and respectful.
Strategic Recalibration Underway
Sheikh Qassem announced an internal strategic review within Hezbollah, noting that various committees have been tasked with assessing the party’s performance and recalibrating its operational approach in media, education, politics, and public engagement. The process, he said, may take up to two months.
“Our principles remain fixed, but our methods must evolve,” he noted.
Openness to Gulf States and Turkey
Qassem affirmed Hezbollah’s willingness to engage with Arab and regional powers, including the Gulf and Turkey, provided the relationship is one of mutual respect and sovereignty.
“We welcome any Arab or foreign effort that contributes to Lebanon’s reconstruction, but not on the basis of turning Lebanon into a client state,” he stressed.
He confirmed ongoing communication with Ankara and other Arab capitals, adding that Hezbollah is part of the government and open to any constructive relationship.
Support for UNIFIL, with Conditions
On UNIFIL’s presence in southern Lebanon, Qassem reiterated Hezbollah’s support for its mandate, provided it respects Lebanese sovereignty and coordinates operations with the Lebanese Army.
“We support the extension of UNIFIL’s mandate, but we reject any unilateral operations by UNIFIL within villages and private properties without army coordination,” he said.
The Role of Arms in Hezbollah’s Identity
Qassem dismissed calls to disarm Hezbollah as misframed, asserting that the party is more than its arsenal.
“Hezbollah is a movement, a belief, a national project. The weapon is just one part of it, and not the defining part.”
While he acknowledged that discussions around arms are valid in the proper context, he underscored that disarmament is not a viable path so long as Lebanon’s sovereignty is at risk.
Rebuttal to Critics: “What Have You Accomplished?”
In a firm rebuke to Hezbollah’s detractors, Qassem challenged those demanding the party’s dissolution:
“What have you accomplished for Lebanon? Our track record speaks for itself: the liberation of southern Lebanon in 2000, the deterrence of Israeli aggression, and 17 years of security since the 2006 war.”
He blamed political rivals for past internal conflicts, foreign interventions, and the rise of groups like ISIS.
On the Absence of Factionalism Within Hezbollah
Qassem laughed off recurring media speculation about internal divisions within Hezbollah.
“They speak of wings and factions, but I see no wings flying. The party is united, the leadership is united, and our decisions are made collectively through the Shura Council.”
He described Hezbollah’s internal cohesion as one of its greatest strengths.
Final Word: Loyalty to Nasrallah and the Resistance Axis
Qassem closed the interview with an emotional tribute to Hezbollah’s late Secretary-General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
“My love for Sayyed was deep, personal, and beyond formality. His leadership lifted burdens from all of us. His martyrdom is a badge of honor.”
He reaffirmed Hezbollah’s unwavering alliance with Iran and the broader Axis of Resistance, praising allies in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria.
“We are continuing on this path with loyalty and strength. Our journey is long, with ups and downs, but it is a journey of great reward.”
source: Al Mayadeen