Are there any wise men in the Party of Iran who would take the initiative to correct the course?
News:
The Lebanese Council of Ministers held a session on Thursday, August 7, 2025, devoted to discussing the item of confining weapons to the state. The Lebanese government held this session to continue discussing the disarmament of the Party of Iran, after tasking the army with preparing a plan for this by the end of the year, amid American pressure on the authorities, in a step that met with absolute rejection from the party.
The meeting was devoted to discussing the content of a memorandum carried by the American envoy, Tom Barack, which includes a timetable for disarming the party that, before the recent confrontation with the Jewish entity, was the most influential political and military force in Lebanon. The ministers representing the party and the Amal movement, affiliated with the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, withdrew from this session of the Council of Ministers, announcing that the priority is to demand support for the Lebanese army, stop the attacks, liberate the prisoners, and withdraw the occupation forces from the five points that they still occupy in southern Lebanon.
Comment:
Although the Party of Iran attributes its position of refusing to give up its weapons to its insistence on maintaining a military force ready to confront any attack by the occupying state on it and on Lebanese territory, the background to this position has become something else that all those following the affairs of the party and Lebanese affairs in general realize. Despite the fact that the Party of Iran has been subjected since the ceasefire agreement in late November 2024 to daily attacks targeting its leaders and members by killing them with drones, until the number of those killed by the occupying entity throughout these months has reached more than 230 of its members, it has nevertheless refrained from any response to these continuous attacks! This is clear evidence that it has made a decision not to resist the occupation or even respond to its attacks that it carries out throughout the length and breadth of Lebanese territory. The party has realized that its leadership's decision in Tehran is not to open a real battle front with the entity, and it was clear that Tehran has prevented it from opening a real war on the entity since the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, as it obligated it to what was known as the rules of engagement for months, which are the rules that stipulate that its operations be limited to limited maneuvers that do not impede the entity's criminal and destructive operations in the Gaza Strip, until the entity carried out the assassination operations that swept most of the party's leadership and neutralized thousands of its fighters, and destroyed most of its stockpile of missiles and heavy weapons.
Accordingly, the party is now aware that its weapon has lost its function of confronting the occupying entity. So why then does it cling to its weapon and refuse to give it up?
The answer is simply fear; fear of whom? It is fear of the opponents and enemies that the party has created for about two decades, since it spent a large amount of its effort on internal and regional conflicts with the components of the region, at the forefront of whom is the vast majority of Muslims.
The party succeeded to a large extent until 2005 in avoiding animosities with the people of Lebanon and the region, as its effort was focused on resisting the occupation in southern Lebanon, without showing significant interference in the complex political conflicts. It enjoyed the respect of most of the components for spending its effort in this noble work, especially when the occupation forces withdrew under its blows in 2000. However, the first activity that constituted a sharp provocation inside Lebanon was in 2005, when most of the people of Lebanon, with their different orientations and sects, rose up against the tyranny of the Damascus regime that ruled Lebanon with iron and fire, repression and humiliation, so the party, with its ally Nabih Berri, head of the Amal movement, mobilized tens of thousands of (Shiite) demonstrators in demonstrations to support the Bashar regime under the slogan "Thank you, Assad's Syria." Then the assassination operations followed, which overthrew a large number of symbols of the political forces, which the party crowned by invading the city of Beirut and the Druze region of Mount Lebanon in 2008 to subdue its political opponents who clustered under the title "March 14 Movement" and who represented the majority of the Lebanese political forces, and dozens of people were killed in various Lebanese regions as a result of that invasion, which Hassan Nasrallah at the time called "a glorious day in the history of the resistance." After this invasion and the preceding waves of assassinations, it was able to gradually tighten its grip on power.
However, the most foolish and heinous adventure in the history of the party was its involvement in the war alongside the criminal regime against the sons of the rebellious nation in Syria, so it was an active partner in the massacre of a million martyrs in Syria, and in the displacement of more than half of its people, in defense of that dirty regime, in addition to its interference in the bloody strife in Iraq and Yemen.
These adventures, in which Iran involved its party in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere, constituted a laboratory for making opponents, enemies, and grudge-holders from various groups, foremost among whom are the sons of the Islamic nation from the people of Syria and Lebanon who have tasted the woes of the alliance of villains in which the party was involved.
Because the party knows this well, today - as it is called upon to give up its weapons - it feels terrified of the threats that surround it from every side and in every place where it has made enemies for itself.
Would the party have been seized with this terror had it not been for its policy that it has pursued since it turned its weapons from resisting the occupation to confronting the people of the region? Would it have fallen into this predicament had it not enlisted itself in the Iranian policy that, in alliance with America in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, ignited the abhorrent sectarian strife? Would the Shiites have been placed in confrontation with the rest of the Islamic nation had it not been for the feeding of the culture of hatred and resentment that Iran and its followers in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon fostered and which was clothed in sectarianism? The answer is clear in the era in which the party was relatively distant from these abominations, which is the era in which the pictures of Hassan Nasrallah and the flags of the party were raised in Egypt, Pakistan, and many Muslim countries in appreciation of what the resistance had achieved in confronting the occupying army.
What should the leaders of the party do if they followed the path of their comrades who distanced themselves from sectarian entrenchment and declared their allegiance to the nation, not to sectarianism? What should they do if they joined the nation's revolution in the Levant instead of siding against it in the alliance of minorities? What should they do if they shed the grudges, burdens, and shackles of history and abandoned illusions and superstitions to be an integral part of the nation that God Almighty has made the middle nation, a witness over people? Would they feel today that they are surrounded on all sides by opponents lying in wait for them? Or would they find themselves sheltering in a strong fortress in which they fortify themselves against the real enemies?
These questions are addressed to those who still have a remnant of wisdom, a remnant of loyalty to the nation and not to the sect, and a remnant of those who aspire to the Islam of evidence, argument, and proof, not to the illusions and superstitions of history. So, is there anyone who can regain the compass as a salvation for himself and for his family behind him?
Written for the Radio of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir
Ahmed Al-Qasas
Member of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir
