The Political Segment of Sheikh Qassem’s Speech on the Central Ashura Council [Muharram 6]

Translated by Al-Ahed News, Hezbollah Media Relations

The political segment of Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem’s Speech on the Central Ashura Council on June 21, 2026 [Muharram 6, 1448 AH].

The second issue concerns the political situation.

On November 27, 2024, an agreement was reached to halt the aggression following “Israeli” attempts to eliminate the Resistance. However, the balance of power led to this outcome. We were supposed to move into a second phase—namely, an “Israeli” withdrawal. The aggression had failed and was unable to achieve its objectives.

Yet “Israel” continued to bet that circumstances would change. It tested its luck, believing that the Resistance had weakened. Netanyahu reached a point where he succeeded in influencing Trump and pulling him into a war against Iran. He argued that if Iran were struck, the center would be hit, allowing them to return and strike what they call the “arms” afterward.

As a result, we are now facing what they see as a historic opportunity—not to eliminate the Resistance in Lebanon, but to eliminate the head of the Resistance in the Arab and Islamic world, which represents the highest expression of support for the oppressed in pursuing their independent choices and in the struggle to liberate Palestine and all occupied lands.

It was an extraordinarily ambitious plan. Neither the United States nor “Israel” was able to achieve it. They embarked on an undertaking that many observers believed would be over within a matter of days, but that proved not to be the case.

Today, Iran has emerged stronger despite the immense and profound sacrifices it has made. Iran has its own voice and has demonstrated that it will not relinquish its rights. Likewise, the Resistance in Lebanon has endured tremendous sacrifices, including the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan, the martyrdom of many others, the dedication of the mujahideen and their families, and countless other major sacrifices.

Iran has also endured the martyrdom of the Leader the Imam and the loss of senior leaders and martyrs, including commanders and other prominent figures. Despite some 25,000 airstrikes against Iran, it stood firm and remained steadfast, thanks to the greatness of its people and its exceptional leadership.

In Lebanon, during the 105 days of Operation Devoured Chaff [Al-Asf Al-Ma’koul Battle], approximately 10,000 airstrikes were carried out. Yet despite all these sacrifices, the Resistance remains steadfast.

“Israel”, as well as its allies and those aligned with its position, must acknowledge one reality: you had a project aimed at eliminating Iran, Hezbollah and the Resistance throughout the region, and that project has failed.

Hence, there is now a new phase—one defined by the consequences of the failure of the American-“Israeli” project to strike and dismantle the Resistance. You must come to terms with the realities and implications of this new situation. There is no longer any possibility of turning back the clock.

They tell us there is a ceasefire, but apparently there is one interpretation of a ceasefire in Lebanon and the Middle East, and another interpretation recognized by the rest of the world.

What kind of ceasefire is this? It is something entirely new. They say a ceasefire means that Hezbollah must stop firing, while “Israel” retains complete freedom of action—able to kill wherever it wishes, advance wherever it wishes, and do as it pleases—and this, they claim, is called a ceasefire, with the details to be settled later.

This is not a ceasefire; it is a continuation of the aggression. Do you really think you can impose such an arrangement? You cannot. Who would accept such a ceasefire on your terms?

Let me tell you something we have not spoken about before.

Throughout the fifteen months during which we remained patient and steadfast, anyone who contacted us proposing a solution beginning with a ceasefire would say: “By a ceasefire, we mean that you stop firing first and allow 48 or 72 hours to see whether ‘Israel’ is willing to stop firing as well. Then we can determine what kind of arrangement can be reached.”

We would ask, “What do you mean, we stop firing?” They would reply, “No, this is a concession we are proposing in order to see whether ‘Israel’ agrees or not.”

This was the proposal repeatedly put forward throughout those fifteen months. The very same approach was repeated during Operation Devoured Chaff [Al-Asf Al-Ma’koul Battle] and throughout the past months as well.

Who do you think you’re fooling?

They would say to us: “What can you offer ‘Israel’?”

My brother, “Israel” has already taken what it wanted to take. There is an agreement in place—let it implement it.

But they would respond: “No, ‘Israel’ must be given something.”

Why?

They would say: “We are speaking with ‘Israel’, and it is telling us: ‘I have power, and I can impose what I want. There are people helping me in this matter. Why shouldn’t I use this power to obtain whatever I want?’”

In other words, they are not operating on the basis that you have rights that should be respected. Nor are they proceeding from the premise that they are the aggressor. Rather, they are acting from a position of domination, occupation, expansionism, and the vision of a "Greater 'Israel'". They seek to advance that project as far as they can, relying on the support of others to help them achieve it.

We would say no, of course. We suffered—we suffered because those who were telling us to do this or that were supposed to stand with us, because we are in the right. At the very least, they should have supported us in words; at the very least, they should not have sat on the sidelines applauding “Israel”, and at the very least, some should not have been betting on “Israel”.

In any case, we do not want to go down that path.