Even though the Western media and its local ideological counterparts did all they could to spin Iran and Hizbullah’s humanitarian move in a negative light, facts remain facts.
Iran’s oil delivery to Lebanon through Hizbullah is a paradigm shift, locally and regionally.
Over the past several decades, the primary Western deterrent against indigenous socio-political movements in West Asia was the ability of Western powers to inflict a coordinated harsh military blow and a costly economic embargo.
Recent events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, along with Lebanon’s ability to end the Zionist occupation on its own terms, have shown to significantly reduce the Western regimes’ ability to inflict military blows and remain unscathed.
There is now a significant cost to NATO’s militarism.
While NATO regimes can still inflict significant economic damage, it is declining.
Interdependence of the global economic set-up and the growing economic clout of other state and non-state economic players worldwide is contributing to the West’s declining economic leverage.
Unlike 20 years ago, entities willing to resist Western geopolitical and cultural dominance have alternative outlets into which to channel their economic activities.
While the alternative economic institutions, mechanisms and alliances have not yet fully matured, they are currently at a level to give some breathing space to those wishing to resist NATO blackmail.
Today, simply due to the technological, informational, and logistical advancement of humanity, options for economic activities and political maneuvering outside of the Western sphere are multiplying.
This is the primary context through which Western propaganda against Hizbullah’s receipt of oil from Iran should be understood.
In the localized context, Hizbullah’s latest move is likely to have significant political ramifications for Lebanon domestically.
Lebanon’s internal political landscape is significantly influenced by external factors.
Other Lebanese political players will, therefore, urge their wealthy backers in the Arabian Peninsula to provide some economic assistance in order not to lose face in Lebanon.
Hizbullah’s latest move is a catch-22 situation for NATO regimes and their Lebanese proxies.
If Western regimes and their local proxies attempt to make it difficult for Hizbullah to continue bringing oil into Lebanon without providing an alternative option, they will turn the Lebanese public even more towards Hizbullah and away from themselves.
On the other hand, if other Lebanese political parties are able to convince their Western patrons and Arabian sponsors to alleviate Lebanon’s economic woes, it will also boost Hizbullah’s political credibility.
Without Hizbullah’s receipt of oil deliveries, Lebanese proxies would not dare pressure their external patrons.
By viewing Hizbullah primarily as a militant group, Western regimes miscalculated by believing their own propaganda about the movement.
Western countries assumed that by cornering Hizbullah economically, they will force the Islamic movement to act erratically without a calculated political and economic strategy.
The calculation of Western powers was that Hizbullah’s inability to implement economic actions would turn the Lebanese public against it and reinforce the Western narrative that the organization is nothing more than a militia.
Just as in 2000, 2006 and 2011 in Syria, the movement outplayed its foes politically and economically. This reality is now noticed by Lebanese of all religious configurations.