Controversy of Hezbollah’s military integration in Syria (1-3)

Ahmed Sami Abdel Fatah

Since 2011, Hezbollah, the Shiite political party and militant group based in Lebanon, has been supporting Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Hezbollah’s military integration expanded as the regime lost its grip over more areas to the Syrian opposition.

And despite that international reports affirm Hezbollah’s role in the war in Syria, but it did not declare its military integration in Syrian until 2013, when the group initiated a military campaign to restore al-Qusayr city in western Syria from the armed opposition.

We can explain Hezbollah’s military integration in the Syrian conflict through a set of ideological reasons that made it imperative to support the Syrian regime, in addition to other military reasons related to preserving the Syrian route for Iran’s weapons. Not to mention the military privileges that Hezbollah would get by supporting the regime and providing training camps for its operatives.

This military integration also reflects a development in Hezbollah’s defensive strategies, as after the party decided to settle south of Lebanon and keep an eye on Israel’s movements on the borders, it developed the stoutness to launch a military operation outside the Lebanese borders as it aims to neutralize any outside threats that might hinder its missile capabilities.

International powers preserves Hezbollah’s military integration in Syria as a drain to the party’s resources and morale, the matter that explains why no procedures were taken against it so far.

This study intends to dive into Hezbollah’s motives behind its military integration in Syria and support to the regime despite of the international and local challenges that face this decision, in addition to different scenarios of how the war in Syria would affect the party.

Motives behind the military integration:

Since the war in Syria started, Lebanon realized that every stand it might take would anger both local and international sides, as if Lebanon decided to side with the Syrian regime and its allies, the Sunna and their regional allies, including Saudi Arabia, would rage.

Lebanon’s stand, however, did not deter Hezbollah from interfering with neighboring countries, as the party dealt with the situation according to main political reasons, and other secondary religious reasons.

As for the political one, Hezbollah sought to protect Iran’s route of weapon supply through Syria; the fall of the Syrian regime would serve as a military setback for the party, without even go to war or losing a single fighter.

In addition to this, Hezbollah believes there is an international conspiracy to destruct the “Axis of Resistance”, which is anti-Western and anti-Israeli alliance between Iran, Syria, and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militias and the Houthis. Therefore, the fall of the Syrian regime would make Hezbollah vulnerable to a military siege, which explains the party’s adventurism in going to war in Syria.

The party’s religious motives also played a role in its decision, but they were not as effective as the political reasons; Hezbollah wanted to support the Syrian regime as it is considered a shield against outside and Israeli threats. This means that the party’s religious motives, were established to serve it political and geostrategic aims in Syria.

Why is not the party globally targeted?

The U.S State Department designated Hezbollah a Foreign Terrorist Organization in October 1997, and in July 2013, the European Union labeled the group’s armed wing a terrorist organization. In 2016, the Arab League only days after the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) adopted the same stance.

Despite of the fact that the United States is leading an international coalition since 2014 to fight Daesh, it never targeted Hezbollah’s fighters in Syria; this is because the Obama administration managed to settle the nuclear file with Iran peacefully through negotiation, so targeting Hezbollah’s fighters in Syria would only toughen the situation.

This is in addition to the U.S.’s strategy of “deepening the chaos” that it followed since the beginning of the crisis, which aims at prolonging the war as long as the United States has the upper hand in the outcomes or channeling it so it serves its own interests.

We cannot also oversee another U.S. policy to concentrate on the priorities, this means that the United States did not want to go to war against Daesh in Syria alone, so it seeks to preserve the unity of the coalition, which might weaken if the United States decided to initiate a military adventure without considering the consequences.

In UK, MPs have rejected possible military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons. Also, an opinion poll showed British voters opposing any military attack on Syria, even if it is proved beyond doubt President Bashar al-Assad’s government used chemical weapons on his own people.