This week, on Radio J, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, found himself in difficulty, hesitating on the qualification of the political wing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Ultimately, he refused. If its military wing is indeed considered by France as terrorist, the political party does not fall into this category. This distinction raises serious questions. Was Hezbollah’s political branch not precisely designed to reassure, even deceive, Western interlocutors?
The journalist did not fail to underline this with a provocative comparison: in 1940, would we have distinguished the political branch of Nazi Germany from its military apparatus, which constituted the SS? Faced with this question, Jean-Noël Barrot took refuge behind a pragmatic response: “We recognize as stakeholders in the Lebanese political process the leaders from Hezbollah who contribute to it. The main thing for us is to obtain the disarmament of Hezbollah. »
The French exception
This reading does not gain consensus on the international scene. The United States, Canada, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Arab League and even Israel categorically reject this separation between the political and military branches. In fact, the first guides the armed action of the second, so much so that this distinction appears largely artificial, including in the eyes of Hezbollah itself. Therefore, should France persist in this approach in the name of diplomatic influence that it would seek to preserve? And above all, what influence are we talking about, even though the State of Israel rules out any French participation in the current negotiations with Beirut?
Its goal: an Islamic Republic in Lebanon
Today, France maintains a channel of communication with Hezbollah, representing an exception in the West. But what is this link really for, when a second French soldier from UNIFIL, Master Corporal Anicet Girardin, succumbed to his wounds in Lebanon during an attack attributed to Hezbollah – the same one which cost the life of another French soldier, Florian Montorio? How can we justify this dialogue when Hezbollah actually has French blood on its hands? And this, while, according to Western intelligence services, its agents have repeatedly planned terrorist attacks in Europe.
Several countries have drawn the consequences: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Lithuania, Estonia and even the Czech Republic have banned all Hezbollah activity on their territory and designated it a terrorist organization, without distinction. When will France break with this exception, even as its relations with Israel reach an unprecedented level of tension? Especially since, on the internal level, the “Party of God” aims for nothing less than the establishment of an Islamic Republic in Lebanon, modeled on the Iranian model; an ambition hidden behind a facade of nationalist discourse.
The false nose of nationalism
But the reality is quite different: after the civil war and until 2005, the Syrian regime imposed its tutelage over nearly 80% of Lebanon, without arousing the slightest resistance from Hezbollah. Since then, his action has gone beyond Lebanese borders: he has supported the regime of Bashar al-Assad since 2013, trained militias in Iraq and provided unconditional support to the Houthis in Yemen. So many commitments reveal an agenda largely dictated by Tehran, a thousand miles from a strictly national project.
Meanwhile, France maintains that its voice still counts in Lebanon. However, Emmanuel Macron has still not relaunched the conference in support of the Lebanese armed and security forces, initially scheduled for March 5, then announced for April – without any date being set to date. During his meeting last Tuesday with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, the announcements remained limited, without mention of concrete military support for the Lebanese army. This choice can certainly be explained: between an abysmal debt and massive support for Ukraine in its rearmament, France’s margins of action give the impression of being limited.
