On March 09, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem gave his first lengthy interview to Manar Sabbagh from Al Manar, Hezbollah’s satellite TV station, after assuming his post. Qassem’s predecessor, Hassan Nasrallah, often gave similar interviews to Al Manar and Al Mayadeen, another Lebanese channel, delving deeper into issues that Hezbollah considered important. These engagements allowed Nasrallah to buttress the group’s narrative around such issues and develop both his own cult of personality, which helped retain and grow Lebanese Shiite support, and the reputation of other figures deemed critical to the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance.”
In last month’s interview, Qassem dealt with issues ranging from Nasrallah’s funeral to Hezbollah’s conduct during the war and the group’s future in Lebanon. Sabbagh interjected with questions meant to build up the new secretary-general’s cult of personality—a status that made Nasrallah very effective but almost indispensable.
Nasrallah’s funeral
Qassem said Hezbollah delayed holding Nasrallah and Hashem Saffiedine’s funeral to protect the people, “but the delay allowed us to find a burial plot near the airport, and the opportunity to allow the people to participate.” This participation, he said, turned out to be “exceptional” and showed a commitment to the future, expressing Hezbollah’s supporters’ belief that “the resistance isn’t an idea or a phase; it is their food and drink and the blood coursing in their veins.”
Qassem insisted funeral attendance was so massive that “even [our] foes could not ignore the crowds.” He had an interest in exaggerating attendance, of course. However, the most credible estimate, offered by Lebanese consulting group Information International, put attendance at 690,000–900,000 overwhelmingly Lebanese attendees. Qassem insisted the funeral attendance was both an outpouring of grief and “a message” that the group’s supporters remained committed and willing to offer more sacrifices.
Nasrallah’s death and succession
After Nasrallah’s assassination, Qassem conferred with Hashem Safieddine, Hezbollah’s Executive Council chairman and Nasrallah’s heir apparent, on the succession. Qassem claims he insisted that Safieddine, whom he deemed more qualified, succeed Nasrallah. He said the two agreed to parcel out roles, with Safieddine overseeing military matters and Qassem handling political issues. “That is why I spoke on September 30 as deputy secretary-general, while [Safieddine] attended to the military mission,” Qassem said. He claims Safieddine was indeed elected by Hezbollah’s Consultative Council but was assassinated by Israel on Thursday, October 3, 2024, before his election was announced that weekend.
Qassem described Safieddine’s assassination as an “earthquake.” He said he felt reassured by Safieddine being next in line after losing Nasrallah, and Safieddine’s death turned his life upside down and left him temporarily lost. However, Qassem alleges a quick internal dialogue and divine inspiration helped him regain his bearings and determination to continue in his predecessors’ path—after which, he turned to calm his colleagues in Hezbollah with assurances of divinely promised victory.
The interviewer interjected to exaggerate Qassem’s bravery, saying, “Those around you described you as exceptionally brave, possessed of a calmness” and—to also highlight Qassem’s erudition—claimed the Hezbollah leader even requested books. Feigning humility, Qassem described his need to constantly read in his free time.
Qassem steps up
Qassem said his announcement as secretary-general was delayed until September 30 to confirm Safieddine’s September 19 death, bury him on September 23, and allow a week to pass out of respect. Qassem said he then began liaising with Hezbollah’s military leadership to assess the group’s remaining capabilities and determine the proper tempo of continued attacks on Israel. “I coordinated a program with them for daily strikes, where to strike, the means, the details, when we’d hit Tel Aviv, when we’d hit Haifa,” he claimed. Qassem said he followed the minutiae of the operations so he could set war goals.
Qassem claimed Israel intended its rapid assassinations to create an internal “earthquake” in Hezbollah and “end” the group. However, he claims that he helped Hezbollah regain its footing within 10 days, aided by the group possessing a “big body.”
“We have endless commanders and immense capabilities,” he said, claiming they soon filled all vacancies and allowed Hezbollah to continue its daily strikes and hit major Israeli cities.
Hezbollah’s strength and the ceasefire deal
Qassem claimed Hezbollah’s strength remained largely intact, citing daily attacks on northern Israel and the “endurance” of its fighters “on the frontline.” This strength, he said falsely, prevented Israel from reaching the Litani River. Qassem once again suggested that Hezbollah obstructed Israel’s real war aim of reaching Beirut and forced Jerusalem to demand a ceasefire. “When the ceasefire occurred, it was based on [our] existing strength, and when we stopped [attacks] on the day of the ceasefire, we did so from a position of strength. … We … still possess this capability,” he alleged.
Qassem said Hezbollah constantly communicated with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri during Lebanon’s ceasefire negotiations with Israel on the deal’s content. Ultimately, he claimed, Hezbollah accepted the ceasefire not out of weakness but because it never wanted the war. Thus, when Israel agreed to a ceasefire based on Security Council Resolution 1701, “we had no objection.”
Qassem insisted Hezbollah had exclusively focused its attacks on Israeli military targets, despite also boasting about strikes on Tel Aviv and Haifa. He also insisted that his group remained “well and will continue” despite the damage it absorbed during the war. Sacrifices and “heavy price[s],” he said, were a natural part of Hezbollah’s resistance vocation, but the group prevailed “against Israel with all of its murderousness, and America with its tyranny, murderousness, capabilities, weapons, and cooperation of European powers.” Qassem sought to explain Hezbollah’s setbacks with this oft-repeated exaggeration so the group could spin a clear defeat into a victory by virtue of survival. “We paid a heavy price, but the resistance is continuing, thank God,” he said.
Hezbollah under the ceasefire agreement
Qassem said Hezbollah rejected the US-Israel letter of assurance. He said the group agreed to the November 27 Lebanon-Israel ceasefire deal—as it applied to the presence of armed groups and their infrastructure and unauthorized border crossings—on the basis that it complied with Lebanon’s idiosyncratic understandings of Security Council Resolution 1701and was operative only “south of the Litani River.” “Now we consider the [Lebanese] state responsible,” he said.
However, Qassem suggested that the state was failing to live up to its responsibilities. He pointed to visits of religious Jews to the Tomb of Rav Ashi/Sheikh Abbad—bifurcated by the Blue Line—near Houla in south Lebanon as proof of this failure and Israel’s incremental but “massive expansionism project from the Mediterranean to the Gulf.” Qassem then threatened Israel over its continued presence in five points of south Lebanon past the ceasefire’s February 18 withdrawal deadline.
“This resistance and its people will not allow you to remain,” Qassem said, advising Israel to seize the “opportunity” to withdraw peacefully while “the Lebanese state is addressing the matter, to which we have agreed.”
Lebanon, Hezbollah, and the future of the group’s arms
Qassem rejected claims Hezbollah was fighting anyone else’s war on Lebanese land, pointing to all the “fighters, martyrs, and the land occupied” being Lebanese. He said that Hezbollah differed from its accusers in their responses, though both rejected the Israeli occupation. “Hezbollah says the occupation must be confronted with the resistance, the people, and the army if it continues. They choose diplomacy, even if diplomacy costs us Lebanon.”
Qassem said Hezbollah had withdrawn north of the Litani River, and so Israel lacked any excuse for its continued “violations” of Lebanese sovereignty. But Israel, he said, needed no excuses to commit aggression, and therefore, he cautioned Lebanese officials against blaming Hezbollah. Qassem called on the group’s domestic opponents, disparaging them as “self-described sovereigntists,” to cooperate with Hezbollah and direct their verbal attacks at Israel instead “because we live in one country.” In any case, he said, Hezbollah “will not stop resistance, try what you may. We’ll see where it will get you.”
Qassem also insisted that Hezbollah’s principles, including its adherence to Khomeinism, remain unchanged. The group would continue confronting Israel’s expansionism “to liberate our land” and also “help the Palestinians to achieve liberation” based on Hezbollah’s current circumstances and means. Qassem said Hezbollah also supports “building an effective and just state to satisfy the needs of the people. When we participated in the parliamentary elections [beginning in 1992], or the government [beginning in 2005], or municipal elections, we did so to represent the people and offer our model. … So, I repeat, we’re continuing.”
Qassem rejected the idea this government engagement meant Hezbollah would lay down its arms and pursue an exclusively political course. “When we say the resistance is continuing, and while we speak of a strong state, what do we mean by ‘continuing?’ With books?! It is continuing on the battlefield,” he said. Qassem stated that the participation of Hezbollah’s Radwan Force in Nasrallah’s funeral was meant to convey Hezbollah’s intention to “remain in the [battle]field, we are continuing.”
Qassem insisted that only Hezbollah’s “methods, means, and time” would change. However, he said, its principles, including resistance, would continue, because “resistance is part of our principles … if resistance ends, will there even be a Lebanon?” He pointed to Israel’s operations in Syria after Bashar al Assad’s ouster as proof of Israeli designs on Lebanon. “We’d see this all in Lebanon if not for the existence of the resistance,” he said.
Qassem continued:
The Israelis know well today that if they don’t leave [Lebanese] land, they will confront resistance. Not now. But later. Later when? In a day, in a month, after some time. I don’t know. We are being patient. Because the [Lebanese] state is now responsible. But that does not mean matters will always remain like this. They must know this. Some changes happened, and we must adapt our tactics and methods. What do we say to the people? We tell them that now, we won’t respond every time Israel strikes like we did in the past. No. There were rules of engagement [lit. “an equation”], but they no longer exist. New rules of engagement will arise, and we certainly won’t allow Israel to set them. We will set rules of engagement that will protect our future and our country and will lead, in steps, toward liberation. Part of the rules by which we are now operating is giving the state the full opportunity for political action, so we can prove to the entire world that Israel only withdraws by force and only understands weapons.
Qassem asked the group’s supporters for patience and to utilize the current respite in the long war with Israel while trusting that Hezbollah’s “leadership, resistance and legendary fighters” remain present and are acting wisely. “Possessing wisdom and faith means I must act appropriately to suit the situation,” he said, and that a delayed response demonstrated Hezbollah’s strength, not its defeat. “We chose patience. We have our means. Our people are with us. Our direction is there. Our principles remain. Our presence remains. But we believe we must now be patient, to see where the [ceasefire] deal will lead us.” Hezbollah, Qassem insisted, was acting according to its “realistic and pragmatic” nature.
Qassem confessed that tremendous domestic pressure backed by the United States and Israel—including halting Iranian airliners from landing in Beirut—sought to deny Hezbollah any rest. But the group, he said, remained ready and willing for any confrontation, which it would conduct “as appropriate—partially politically, partially through media/information,” and partially through “other” unspecified means. Hezbollah was dealing with all these matters, Qassem claimed, through increased cooperation with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and granting Prime Minister Nawaf Salam the party’s confidence in parliament. He said that this collaboration had already overcome some of the issues, such as American objections to Hezbollah’s presence in Salam’s government.
Qassem said it was premature to judge Hezbollah’s relationship with Aoun and Salam but insisted that “there’s a certain positive warmth with the president.” The Hezbollah leader said he supports the prime minister, and Hezbollah seeks cooperation with him but has yet to determine his intentions. Nevertheless, Qassem said, Hezbollah wants to help the Lebanese government with all its challenges, but also stop any American attempts to interfere in domestic politics.
Hezbollah retains the weight to remain politically influential, Qassem said, pointing to the 30 parliamentarians it shares with Amal, “or almost one-fourth of parliament … five ministers, and an extraordinarily cohesive [Shiite] sect, as well as allies.” He further stressed that Amal and Hezbollah together had won 45% of all votes cast during the last parliamentary election, overwhelmingly from Shiite voters. “We operate within the state based on our popular support,” he said, claiming that MP Mohammad Raad, head of Hezbollah’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc, received 47,918 votes, equaling those received by 23 other parliamentarians from smaller districts.
Qassem then addressed Hezbollah’s position on the state’s monopolization of weapons:
We’re not against the Internal Security Forces (ISF) and Lebanese Army being responsible for security in Lebanon and defense. We reject the idea of militias or anyone partnering with the state for defense. But we have nothing to do with this matter. We are a resistance, a resistance against the Israeli enemy. We defend our lands when the enemy attacks us. Now they say the state is sufficient to repel the Israeli enemy. They’re welcome to show us what they can do with this enemy. We have no objection to them confronting [Israel]. But we as a resistance consider Israel a danger—a danger when it is occupying [Lebanese land] or when it seeks occupation, a danger when it is in occupied Palestine. Israel is a danger by all measures. So, the resistance has a right to continue, and that has nothing to do with the administration of the state, the state’s weapons, or maintaining domestic security. If some consider the words of the president … to be directed at us, we don’t. … No, it’s not directed at us. We are with monopolization [of arms by the state]. Domestic security and defending the country aren’t our responsibility. It’s theirs. So, let the army, the ISF, and other agencies carry out those responsibilities. We are a resistance.
Qassem said that Israel, not Lebanon or any actor in it, controlled the decision of war and peace. “If they can prevent Israel from launching wars, great. Then they can monopolize the decision of war and peace. This has nothing to do with someone acting in self-defense when they sense danger,” he said. Qassem again claimed Israel intended to launch the recent war irrespective of Hezbollah, citing former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant pressing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Hezbollah as early as October 11, 2023. However, Hezbollah began attacking Israel on October 8, 2023.
Hezbollah and Lebanese elections
Qassem seemed unconcerned by attempts to create a parliamentary Shiite opposition bloc. “Let them do what they want, and we’ll do the same,” he said. Qassem insisted that Lebanese Shiites would remain loyal to Hezbollah, citing failed prior attempts by “the American Embassy to use the Embassy Shiites” (a pejorative for anti-Hezbollah Shiites) to unseat the group.
Qassem said that a previous understanding between Nasrallah and Berri was guiding Hezbollah and Amal’s current cooperation on upcoming municipal elections, including in villages on the Lebanon-Israel frontier. He was also positive about the group’s relationship with the Druze Progressive Socialist Party and the possibility of an electoral alliance during municipal elections and insisted Hezbollah’s relationship remained strong with the Free Patriotic Movement and Suleiman Frangieh’s Marada Party. Qassem also said there was ample room for agreement with Saad Hariri’s Future Movement.
“We’ve worked with him and his father [Rafic Hariri], may he rest in peace, so we wish them success and influence inside the country because we can work with them,” he said.
Reconstruction issues
Qassem again said the Lebanese state was responsible for post-war reconstruction because Hezbollah didn’t start the war. The group, he said, opened a mere support front, “but support fronts don’t lead to war. … That was an Israeli decision.” He also rejected preconditioning reconstruction aid.
Qassem said that post-war reconstruction was an inseparable part of the Salam government’s promised reforms. He stated that Hezbollah had already helped 236,000 of 286,000 refugees permanently return to their homes and would supplement the state’s future reconstruction efforts—despite it being the state’s exclusive responsibility. Qassem blamed Hezbollah’s domestic foes for reconstruction delays and framed any conditioning of aid (implicitly upon Hezbollah’s disarmament) as an attack on the Shiite sect. Qassem claimed Berri also opposed conditioning aid, describing the Amal Party and Hezbollah as virtually inseparable on the issue.
Hezbollah and regional affairs
Qassem rejected Lebanese normalization with Israel, describing Netanyahu as an American puppet and normalization as a Western imperialist tool to gradually control the region “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” He said it must be confronted, describing US President Donald Trump as a “true tyrant” and “beast” whose quest for world domination would only succeed if he remained undeterred. Qassem said that the United States and Israel were not guaranteed success. Trump could change, and Netanyahu’s term would end “or he may be killed before that, who knows, God willing.”
Qassem said the United States knows that an American strike on Iran would endanger the entire US military presence in the region and have dire global repercussions. “Trump will be very cautious, even though Israel, which seeks to use the United States as a front, is very excited,” he said. Qassem also insisted the Iran-led Axis of Resistance “will continue and is present,” despite suffering severe setbacks “in Palestine and Lebanon.”
Qassem said it was premature to judge Syria’s course. “We wish Syria stability … to establish a system that makes Syria strong and ends Israeli expansionism.” He opposed dividing up Syria and denied any involvement in Syria’s internal affairs. He also feigned ignorance regarding the rise of any resistance in that country but said:
I don’t consider it farfetched that a resistance in Syria will arise against the Israeli enemy. Because the Syrian people are very Arab nationalistic, Islamic, nationalistic, were raised on the hatred of Israel, and reject occupation. It’s long been known that the Syrian people were the Palestinian cause’s primary support … but … whatever will happen is the responsibility of the Syrians.
Qassem ended his interview by sending his salutations to Hezbollah’s fighters and the wounded.
