Hizbullah Leader Na'im Qassem: Al-Aqsa Flood Achieved Its Goal; Israel Failed To Destroy Hamas And Hizbullah; Israeli Withdrawal From Lebanon Should Not Be Delayed; Resistance Will Act At Time And In Manner It Sees Fit
The following report is now a complimentary offering from MEMRI's Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here .
On January 27, 2025, at the conclusion of the 60-day ceasefire between Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon that was signed on November 27, 2024, and following an announcement by the White House on the January 26 about the extension of the ceasefire until February 18, 2025, [1] Secretary-General of Lebanese Hizbullah, sheikh Na'im Qassem, delivered an approximately 50-minute televised speech. In his speech, Qassem claimed that the Al-Aqsa Flood campaign had achieved its goal and that Israel had failed in its attempt to destroy Hamas and Hizbullah. He declared that Israel must withdraw from Lebanon and that his organization would not agree to extend the ceasefire agreement "by even one day." He also asserted that the resistance reserved the right to operate at a time and in a manner that it sees fit. [2]
"The Goal Of Al-Aqsa Flood Was Achieved, And Israel's Project To Destroy The Resistance And Hamas Was Defeated"
The Hizbullah secretary-general opened his speech with remarks pertaining to the January 21, 2025 assassination of sheikh Muhammad Hamadi, the Hizbullah official responsible for the western Beqaa district of Lebanon in the village of Mashgharah in the same area. He said that Hamadi was murdered at "the hands of traitors" and that although the investigation of the incident was still ongoing, "suspicion points toward the Zionists."
Referring to recent incidents in the Gaza Strip, Qassem described them as a victory for the Palestinian people and all the peoples of the region, saying, "The goal of Al-Aqsa Flood was achieved, and Israel's project to destroy the resistance and Hamas was defeated." He said that the "aggression" directed at Gaza and Lebanon was "an unrestrained act of hostility backed by the U.S. and the West," and that the U.S. and Israel wanted to destroy the resistance but it faced them "with legendary resolve and martyrdom-driven determination."
Qassem added that it was Israel that requested a ceasefire and Hizbullah and the government of Lebanon acquiesced, which he claimed was a victory in itself. While noting that Israel's "informational dominance, control over communications, artificial intelligence, and airpower" were critical factors in the strikes directed at Hizbullah, he claimed that the resistance remained strong and had agreed to hold its fire when the government of Lebanon came to the decision to defend its borders and bring about the withdrawal of Israel from its territory. He declared, "This is an opportunity for the state to fulfill its duties and test its political capabilities."
"Israel's Continued Presence In Lebanon Is An Act Of Aggression Against Lebanese Sovereignty; The Resistance Has The Right To Act As It Sees Fit Regarding The Form, Nature, And Timing Of The Confrontation"
The Hizbullah leader said that his organization preferred not to respond to Israel's violations of the ceasefire agreement, despite "feelings of humiliation and retaliatory actions." He described the scenes of the displaced Lebanese returning to their homes in South Lebanon, in the Beqaa Valley, and in the southern suburb of Beirut as "a victory scene," and claimed, "We achieved victory because we returned, and the occupier will be forced to leave and withdraw."
Declaring that the resistance fighters "never left the battlefield," and the resistance remains "steadfast and strong," he also said that the American sponsor of the agreement is the same one who sponsors the Israeli "aggression" and failed to play its role, yet "we decided not to give any pretext. The breach of the agreement proves Lebanon's need for the resistance." Qassem asserted that, "The tripartite equation of the army, the people, and the resistance, which stopped Israel from reaching Beirut and the south of the Litani River, is as clear as the sunlight; the problem lies with those who cannot see it, and it will remain radiant."
He repeated his demand that Israel should have withdrawn from Lebanon at the close of the 60-day period stipulated in the ceasefire agreement and stated that Hizbullah does not agree to an extension of the ceasefire period "by even one day." He said that the U.S., the UN, France and Israel bear the responsibility for all consequences of delaying the Israeli withdrawal. He also declared that a continued Israeli presence in Lebanon "is an [act of] aggression against Lebanese sovereignty, and everyone is responsible for confronting this occupation: the people, the army, the state, and the resistance. The resistance has the right to act as it sees fit regarding the form, nature, and timing of the confrontation."
Two recent statements issued by Hizbullah are notable in the context of Qassem's speech, in which he stressed that a delay in the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon is a flagrant violation of the ceasefire agreement, and urges Lebanon to take every action to make it happen, [3] and also encourages violent confrontations between Lebanese citizens and Israeli forces in South Lebanon. [4]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Shafaq News
2 hours ago
- Shafaq News
Iraq's Al-Sistani warns: Strike on Iran's top leaders risks regional chaos
Shafaq News/ Iraq's top Shiite authority, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, warned on Thursday that any strike on Iran's senior religious or political leadership could ignite uncontrollable chaos across the region. In a statement from his office in Najaf, al-Sistani denounced the ongoing Israeli military campaign against Iran, stressing that targeting the country's top leadership would violate religious principles, breach international law, and defy global norms. 'Such a criminal act would shatter regional stability, deepen human suffering, and inflict far-reaching harm on the interests of all nations.' Al-Sistani called on the international community—particularly Muslim countries—to mobilize diplomatic pressure, halt the aggression, and broker a lawful, peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.
Iraqi News
2 hours ago
- Iraqi News
Iraq among key US military bases in Middle East amid rising tensions
Washington – The United States has thousands of troops deployed on bases across the Middle East, a region in which Washington's forces have carried out repeated military operations in recent decades. Israel launched an unprecedented air campaign against Iran last week, and US President Donald Trump has said he is weighing whether to join Israel in the fight. US involvement in the conflict would likely result in attacks by Tehran on American troops in the region, who were already targeted by Iran-aligned forces in the course of the Israel-Hamas war. Below, AFP examines countries with major concentrations of US forces in the Middle East, which falls under the US military's Central Command (CENTCOM). – Bahrain – The tiny Gulf kingdom hosts an installation known as Naval Support Activity Bahrain, where the US Navy's Fifth Fleet and US Naval Forces Central Command headquarters are based. Bahrain's deep-water port can accommodate the largest US military vessels, such as aircraft carriers, and the US Navy has used the base in the country since 1948, when the facility was operated by Britain's Royal Navy. Several US ships have their home port in Bahrain, including four anti-mine vessels and two logistical support ships. The US Coast Guard also has vessels in the country, including six fast response cutters. – Iraq – The United States has troops at various installations in Iraq, including Al-Asad and Arbil air bases. The Iraqi government is a close ally of Iran, but also a strategic partner of Tehran's arch-foe the United States. There are some 2,500 US troops in Iraq as part of the international coalition against the Islamic State jihadist group. Baghdad and Washington have agreed on a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of the coalition's forces from the country. US forces in Iraq and Syria were repeatedly targeted by pro-Iran militants following the outbreak of the Gaza war in October 2023, but responded with heavy strikes on Tehran-linked targets, and the attacks largely subsided. – Kuwait – Kuwait has several US bases, including Camp Arifjan, the location of the forward headquarters for the US Army component of CENTCOM. The US Army also has stocks of prepositioned materiel in the country. Ali al-Salem Air Base hosts the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing, the 'primary airlift hub and gateway for delivering combat power to joint and coalition forces' in the region. Additionally, the United States has drones including MQ-9 Reapers in Kuwait. – Qatar – Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar includes the forward components of CENTCOM, as well as of its air forces and special operation forces in the region. It also hosts rotating combat aircraft, as well as the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, which includes 'airlift, aerial refueling intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and aeromedical evacuation assets.' – Syria – The United States has for years maintained troop presences at a series of installations in Syria as part of international efforts against the Islamic State group, which rose out of the country's civil war to overrun large parts of Syria and neighboring Iraq. The Pentagon announced in April that it would roughly halve the number of its forces in the country to less than 1,000 in the coming months as part of a 'consolidation' of US troops in the country. – United Arab Emirates – Al Dahfra Air Base in the UAE hosts the US 380th Air Expeditionary Wing, a force that is composed of 10 squadrons of aircraft and also includes drones such as MQ-9 Reapers. Combat aircraft have rotated through Al Dhafra, which also hosts the Gulf Air Warfare Center for air and missile defense training.
Memri
4 hours ago
- Memri
Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's 1988 'Poisoned Chalice' Speech Accepting UN Security Council Resolution 598 Ending The Iran-Iraq War – Will Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Make A Similar Decision?
Introduction On July 17, 1988, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder and leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, announced his agreement to accept UN Security Council Resolution 598 of that month pertaining to a ceasefire in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, after rejecting the ceasefire for years. On the 2012 anniversary of Khomeini's decision, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei published several statements casting Khomeini's decision to end the war in a positive light, attributing it to Iran's grave economic problems at the time. He also stressed Iran's achievements because of this decision. It should be noted that Khamenei translated into Farsi the book The Peace Treaty of Hassan – the Second Imam bin Ali (625-670) who is Khamenei's role model. The book analyzes the circumstances of Hassan's 661 concession on his demand to rule to his rival, the Umayyad Caliph Mu'awiya ibn Abu Sufyan, and justifies Hassan's decision to sign a peace treaty ceding the caliphate, because he was in a much weaker position than the Sunni Mu'awiya and his forces For his translation of the book, Khamenei added to the title the subtitle "The Most Heroic and Glorious Flexibility [narmash-e kaharmananeh] in History," underlining Hassan's tactical decision in negotiating with forces much stronger than his. See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 1846, The Iranian Shi'ite Regime's Built-In Religious Mechanisms For Dealing With Grave Military Threats: Tactical And Temporary Concessions – Which It Calls 'Heroic Flexibility' – That It Has Employed Several Times Since Its Establishment In 1979, June 11, 2025. At this time, as Israel's attacks continue against the infrastructure of the Iranian regime's nuclear and ballistic missile projects in Iran that threaten Israel, Iran's Arab neighbors, and the West, Khamenei is at a crossroads. Will he order continued attacks against Israel, risking more Israeli attacks on Iran and, subsequently, the U.S.'s entry into the fray, which could lead to the collapse of Iran's Islamic regime? Or will he agree to enter into negotiations with the U.S., which will ultimately force him to relinquish Iran's nuclear and missile programs, by means of which he had sought to ensure the survival of the regime by threatening Israel, the Arab countries, and the West? Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's Considerations: Continue The War Or Negotiate/Surrender? In Favor Of Negotiations Or Surrender 1. The top echelon of the military command of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the senior conservative group that has surrounded Khamenei for the past 30 years and accompanied him since the days of the Iran-Iraq war, was eliminated in the first days of the Israeli strikes. 2. The Iranian regime no longer has the power of its proxies to operate in Iran's stead or even at its side. It should be noted that the Iranian regime's policy throughout the years has been to wage war against its enemies – that is, Israel, the Sunni Muslim countries, and the West – by means of proxies. However, in the past two years, most of the elements of the axis of resistance that Iran built over the past three decades have been struck hard and severely damaged or disabled. 3. The decision by Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic Revolution, to accept the terms of surrender in UNSC 598 and stop the war was made under unique circumstances, after eight years of fighting, most of which in a war of attrition that cost Iran about a million lives, severe public resentment, near paralysis of its economy and military, and loss of hope of things ever getting better. 4. The Iranian regime is sending distress signals in the diplomatic arena and asking for direct talks with President Trump at the White House, apparently via Iran's representatives to the UN or Iran's figurehead president, who is a ceremonial figure because the leadership of the regime is reserved for the supreme leader, Khamenei. This change reflects a retreat in the Iranian regime's ideological stance of refusing to acknowledge the U.S. – the "Great Satan." In Favor Of War 1. Khamenei's right hand man today, his son Mojtaba, who is in his fifties and is even more extreme than his father, is the heir apparent of Khamenei, who is 86. Mojtaba relies on a circle of IRGC officers who are younger and more extremist than the veteran IRGC, and who have in recent years demanded a harsher approach to Israel. This generation of IRGC officers did not experience Iran's 1980-88 war against Iraq – in which Iraq was supported by both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. That war was a founding experience for the regime, and this new IRGC generation has not tasted that defeat. 2. Khamenei's situation today is not like Khomeini's in 1988, since not even a week has passed since Israel's first strikes on Iran, and despite the pinpoint damage to Iran's nuclear and missile infrastructure, Khamenei has conveyed that he is determined to continue attacking Israel. The following is a translation of Khomeini's 1988 letter to the Iranian people informing them of his decision to accept the ceasefire. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's 1988 Statement Accepting A Ceasefire In The Iraq-Iran War "At present, after our military men, both of the army and the Revolutionary Guards, who are experts at warfare, openly admit that the Islamic army [of Iran] will not attain victory soon, and considering that military and political officials who support [the regime of] the Islamic Republic do not view a war going forward to be in the best interest of the country, and strongly asserting that 1/10th of the weapons placed by the Eastern and Western Arrogance [i.e. the USSR and the U.S.] at the disposal of Saddam [Hussein, Iraq's then-ruler] cannot be bought, anywhere in the world, for any price, and considering the horrifying letter from the Chief of the IRGC [Yahya Rahim Safavi], which was one of dozens of military-political reports I received after the recent defeats, and [in light of] the acknowledgement of the Armed Forces Deputy Chief of Staff [Hashemi Rafsanjani] saying that the IRGC chief is one of the only commanders who believe in continuing with the war, provided that war supplies are made available, and considering the enemy's widespread use of chemical weapons, and having no means to neutralize them, I accept a ceasefire, and in order to clarify the reason for making this bitter decision, I refer to several points in the letter from the IRGC chief, written on June 23, 1988. "[The commander wrote:] It is possible that we will not achieve any victories for the next five years. It is possible that if we have the means to purchase [what is needed] over the next five years, we will gain the power to carry out destructive operations or counterattacks. And [in five years,] in 1992, if we have 350 ground divisions, 2,500 tanks, 3,000 cannons, 300 fighter jets, and 300 helicopters... which are required for the war during that period, with God's help we may be able to carry out offensive operations. [The commander] says that it should be noted that the IRGC must grow to seven times its current power and that the army must be increased to two and a half times its size. He also mentioned, of course, that we must expel the U.S. from the Persian Gulf, otherwise we cannot succeed. This commander considered the most important factor in the success of his plan to be budgeting and preparing facilities in a timely manner, and noted that it is unlikely that the government and central command could meet their obligations. Of course, while mentioning this, he added that we must fight again, and that this is no longer a mere slogan. "The Prime Minister, [following the] statements by the Ministers of Finance and Budget Planning, announced that the regime's financial situation is at a deficit. Official war authorities say that the cost of the weapons we have lost in just the most recent defeats is equal to the annual budget allocated to the IRGC and the army. Political authorities say that since the people realized that a quick victory will not be achieved, their desire to join the front lines has diminished. "You, my dear ones, know more than anyone that this decision is like deadly poison to me, but I am satisfied by the will of Almighty God and will give all I have to protect [God's] religion and the [regime of] the Islamic Republic. "Oh God, we have risen up for the sake of Your religion, we have fought for Your religion, and we accept the ceasefire in order to defend Your religion. "Oh God, You are witness that we are not compromising with America, the Soviet Union, and all the superpowers of the world for even one moment, and that we see compromising with the superpowers as a betrayal of our Islamic principles. "Oh God, we are strangers to the world of polytheism, unbelief, and hypocrisy, to the world of money, power, and deceit. Please help us. "Oh God, throughout history, when the prophets, the first [imams], and the religious scholars decided to reform society, to combine knowledge and action, and to create a society free of corruption and ruin, they were met with resistance from the Abu-Jahels and Abu-Sufyans of their day.[1] "Oh God, we have sacrificed the children of Islam and our revolution for You, we have none but You, help us carry out your commandments and laws. "Oh God, I beseech You to grant me shahada [martyrdom] as soon as possible. "I have said that a meeting must be held to explain the ceasefire to the people. Beware, hotheaded aggressors may use revolutionary slogans to draw you away from what is best for Islam. I say clearly that all your efforts should be directed at justifying this [the ceasefire]. Any deviation is forbidden, and will incur a response. You know that the regime's leaders made this decision with reddened eyes and hearts full of love for Islam and our Islamic homeland. Look to God and know that all that is happening is for the best, peace be unto us and God's servants." *Ayelet Savyon is Director of the MEMRI Iran Studies project.
