The massive funeral processions held for Sayyad Hassan
Nasrallah in Beirut on Sunday marked the end of an era, but also the beginning
of a new one. Nasrallah, who led Hezbollah for over three decades, was not only
the movement’s most visible figure but also a key player in regional politics,
reports Tehran Times.
Born in 1960 in a Shiite community in Beirut, Hassan
Nasrallah developed a strong interest in Islam and politics, influenced by Imam
Musa al-Sadr. He started in the Amal movement but joined the newly formed
Hezbollah in 1982 after the Israeli invasion. His political career quickly
ascended; by 1985, he was leading Hezbollah's Executive Council and joined the
Shura Council. His frequent visits to Iran strengthened the alliance between
Hezbollah and Iran under the Wilayat al-Faqih doctrine.
A turning
point came in 1992, when Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah’s then-Secretary General, was
assassinated in an Israeli airstrike. Nasrallah, his closest confidant, took
over the movement’s leadership and adopted a more uncompromising stance toward
Israel.
During Mussawi’s funeral, he delivered a speech that would
define Hezbollah’s trajectory, “We will continue on this path... even if we are
martyred, even if our homes are destroyed over our heads, we will not abandon
the choice of Islamic Resistance.”
From that moment on, his rhetoric left no room for
ambiguity. Under his leadership, Hezbollah expanded its military capabilities,
increased its influence in Lebanese politics, and strengthened its alliance
with Iran.
The group’s ties with Tehran were not only ideological but
also operational. Nasrallah’s longstanding relationship with Tehran shaped the
group’s strategy and solidified its position as a major force in West
Asia.
Despite its close ties to Tehran, Hezbollah was never merely
an extension of Iranian policy in the region. The notion that the movement
operates as a proxy without autonomy has been challenged both inside and
outside Lebanon.
The
historical connection between Lebanese Shiites and Iran dates back
centuries—long before Hezbollah’s creation in the 1980s.
In the 16th century, the Safavid dynasty invited Shiite
clerics from the Lebanese region of Jabal Amil to help consolidate Twelver
Shiism in Iran. Over the following centuries, thousands of Lebanese students
traveled to Qom to study in Islamic seminaries, forging deep familial and
political ties with the Iranian Shiite community. This interconnection grew
stronger in the 20th century, when figures like Imam Musa al-Sadr and Mustafa
Chamran played key roles in reshaping Shiite political identity in Lebanon.
Nasrallah
himself consistently rejected the idea that Hezbollah was merely an artificial
creation of Iran. He noted that the movement emerged organically as a response
to the 1982 Israeli invasion. Nevertheless, he openly acknowledged the
influence of the Islamic Revolution and Hezbollah’s alignment with the
principles of Wilayat al-Faqih.
Beyond logistics and religious affinities, what binds
Hezbollah and Iran is a shared political vision. Both see resistance to Western
influence as a matter of survival.
Abdallah Safieddine, Hezbollah’s representative in Iran,
once stated, “What unites us is our adherence to the principles of Wilayat
al-Faqih, as well as our struggle against common enemies.”
Similarly, in a 2018 speech, Nasrallah made it clear that
what binds Hezbollah and Iran is not military support, but a shared political
vision.
“Westerners
do not believe in things like ideology. Their biggest mistake is considering
the Resistance merely as Iranian mercenaries,” he stated. According to
Hezbollah’s leader, the West fails to understand that the Resistance does not
operate under a logic of subordination but rather one of ideological harmony.
Nasrallah, who studied in the Shiite holy city of Najaf,
Iraq, had long held the belief that the world is locked in a constant struggle
between the oppressed (mostazafin) and the oppressors (mostakberin). When
Hezbollah published its founding manifesto in 1985, the defense of the
oppressed against the oppressors was one of its fundamental principles.
From this perspective, the relationship between Hezbollah
and Iran is not based on a patron-client dynamic – as the West likes to portray
– but on a political convergence. The concept of Wilayat al-Faqih—the authority
of the leader of the Islamic revolution over the community—extends beyond the
framework of the nation-state. For followers of this doctrine, Iran is not
merely a country but the epicenter of an Islamic political-revolutionary
project intended to serve as a model for the entire umma (Muslim community).
This is why Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei is not seen solely as Iran’s leader
but as a political authority beyond its borders.
Nasrallah has repeatedly asserted that Hezbollah does not operate
under Tehran’s directives, “Alliance does not mean obedience. It does not mean
that when one party makes a decision, others follow without questioning its
motivations. That would be coercion, not alliance.” This independence is
crucial to understanding the dynamics between both actors.
One of the most revealing episodes of this autonomy occurred
during the Syrian war. According to Esmail Kowsari, a parliamentarian and
member of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), it was Hezbollah that
told Iran the two countries needed to enter the fight against Daesh terrorists.
Iranian
General Hossein Hamedani confirmed in his memoirs that Nasrallah orchestrated
the Resistance’s strategy in Syria and that even operations involving the IRGC
were designed by Hezbollah.
Furthermore, various estimates suggest that even if Iran
were to withdraw its support, Hezbollah could continue to operate
independently. This demonstrates that the movement has built a self-sustaining
structure and a financial network that extends beyond Iranian backing.
Labeling Hezbollah as a mere extension is reductive. The
group is not simply an arm of Iran’s policies but an actor with its own
decision-making and operational capabilities. Their relationship is better
described as symbiotic, while they share strategic objectives and a common
worldview, Hezbollah maintains autonomy in its decision-making.
The funeral of Nasrallah and Hashem Safi al-Din was not only
a farewell for the Hezbollah leaders but also a politically significant event.
It marked a pivotal moment for the Resistance in Lebanon amid escalating tensions
with Israel.
It will provide an opportunity for the Lebanese people to
demonstrate unity in an increasingly complex regional landscape. The message is
clear: the Resistance remains steadfast and will not yield to external
pressures.
At the
funeral ceremony on Sunday, Hezbollah's fourth secretary-general, Sheikh Naim
Qassem, repeated remarks previously delivered by Nasrallah 32 years ago at his
predecessor's funeral. “Resistance has not ended. A new era of Resistance has
just begun,” he said to a sea of mourners.
