A brief of today’s news bulletin:
Starting today, Najib Mikati’s government is on the edge of the abyss. The Iranian fuel would burn the government along with its image and prestige even before it gains confidence.
When the government convened to approve its ministerial statement, the tanks loaded with Iranian diesel entered Lebanon, accompanied with the sound of the Iranian “RPG” missiles. The news is unusual and unprecedented, but of course, we are not talking about RPGs, as Hezbollah and its supporters have the right to do what no other Lebanese can do, meaning that they are free to use bullets, bombs and even missiles whenever they want! So, the big problem is not here, but rather, Najib Mikati and his 23 companions did not utter a single word, as if the matter did not concern them.
How can they say anything and their government is the result of a phone call that the French president made to the Iranian president? But the matter is more complicated, as Iranian diesel arrived by land after it was impossible to arrive by sea.
We all remember what Hezbollah’s Secretary-General said during Ashura sermon, when he confirmed that the party would bring Iranian ships to the port, defying that anyone would dare to prevent him from doing so. Of course, Nasrallah’s words went in vain, and the ships did not approach Beirut, but rather reached Banias, and from there they were carried by tankers to Lebanon.
Herein lies the new problem. How did these tanks reach Lebanon? Did it cross the legal borders, and did it pass through Lebanese legitimate forces such as the army and customs? Or did it take the illegal crossings? In both scenarios there is a problem. In the first case, how will the Lebanese government justify to the world the passage of Iranian goods that are prohibited from being exported abroad? In the second case, how can the party claim that it cannot control the illegal crossings as long as it uses them? Doesn’t this mean that smuggling was taking place with Hezbollah’s knowledge and under his supervision, and perhaps for his own benefit?
Between a state that plays the role of a witness that is not witnessing anything, or a state that applies the proverb: “Its protector is its thief”. What can the Lebanese do in such situation?
