Positions of Hassan Nasrallah; Precursor to 'New Sanctions' on Iran

In September 1980, while the Islamic Revolution had not yet reached two years, few imagined that an eight-year war with significant financial and human losses for Iran was about to unfold. However, it did. In February 2003, when Iran, as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, announced that Iranian experts were preparing nuclear fuel for Iran's nuclear power plants, few suspected that a 12-year crisis longer than the war was on the horizon. However, it did. Ayatollah Khomeini insisted on the war until Saddam's destruction, stating, 'Peace between Islam and infidelity has no meaning.' His successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, considered the nuclear file a 'legitimate right.' Ultimately, the insistence of both led to Khomeini's acceptance of Resolution 598 being termed 'drinking the cup of poison' and Khamenei's acceptance of negotiations with the U.S. in nuclear talks being called 'heroic flexibility.' What is important is that at the beginning of these two disastrous crises for Iran, few in the Islamic Republic's leadership believed that the initiated process would lead to a devastating war in the first case and a harmful and endless project in the second, which would ultimately require concessions in both cases. Circumventing Hezbollah's sanctions; the ball is in Iran's court. Hezbollah, in its home country of Lebanon, has been placed under suffocating banking sanctions at the request of the U.S. Today, few may believe that this issue could lead to crippling sanctions for Iran. The matter is that on December 15, 2015, the U.S. Congress passed a bill requiring Lebanese banks, including the central bank, to impose banking sanctions on all key institutions and individuals of this party, including Hassan Nasrallah. The long list of these institutions and individuals was prepared and communicated to Lebanese banks by the U.S. As a result, the central bank and Lebanese banks implemented all U.S. conditions for imposing banking sanctions against 100 institutions and individuals of Hezbollah on July 9, 2016. Hezbollah's initial reaction was to deny the impact of the sanctions on the party. In a statement, the party said, 'This new attack [by the U.S.] through the banking sector against Hezbollah will fail.' However, since that day, the main question for observers has been what mechanism Hezbollah will use to counter the heavy banking sanctions from the U.S. in the birthplace of Hezbollah, Lebanon. Hassan Nasrallah answered this important question in his speech on June 25. With a smile on his face, he said, 'As long as Iran has money, we have money too... We have no financial institution that can break our back with banking sanctions. Let the whole world know... [in resisting Israel] all our projects, all expenses, all food, all weapons, and missiles are all supplied by the Islamic Republic of Iran... Just as the missiles we use to threaten Israel come from Iran, all our assets also come from Iran.' The content analysis of Nasrallah's statements reveals that he clearly unveiled the mechanism for circumventing his party's sanctions. He stated that Hezbollah's financial resources are not in Lebanon, and thus, the banking sanctions against Lebanese banks will not cut off Hezbollah's financial resources. He continued his clear statement to the extent that he said, 'As long as Iran has money, we have money.' It is strongly questionable whether Nasrallah completely denies the impact of sanctions. However, with Nasrallah revealing the mechanism for circumventing the sanctions, the important question is what the implications of Nasrallah's words are for Iran. Let us remember that the explicit position of the U.S. and its allies was that only Iran's nuclear sanctions would be lifted as a result of the JCPOA. Barack Obama stated that the negotiations leading to the approval of the JCPOA did not include other sanctions. These three other sanctions are: sanctions related to missile activities, sanctions related to human rights violations, and sanctions related to support for terrorism. It is believed that the rings of sanctions against Iran of the third type (support for terrorism) are gradually being completed. Hezbollah is now classified as a terrorist organization not only by the U.S., Australia, Canada, and the European Union but also by the Arab League and, most importantly, by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. This means that all Islamic countries (except Tehran and Damascus), even Iraq and Lebanon (the birthplace of Hezbollah), also consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. In such a wide range of countries, including Arab, Muslim, and Western nations, what are the unintended consequences of Nasrallah's words for Iran? Nasrallah's positions; paving the way for 'new sanctions' on Iran. If the content analysis of Nasrallah's statements does not indicate that he confidently considers his income sources not in Lebanon but in Iran, and considering that Iran is under suspicion of supporting terrorist networks not only by Western countries but also by an entity like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, does the unintended consequence of Hassan Nasrallah's positions not suggest that we should expect the sanctions targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon to turn towards Iran? Has Hassan Nasrallah not clearly and thoroughly completed the puzzle of 'new sanctions' on Iran, this time concerning support for terrorism? This question is significant, especially knowing that the Financial Action Task Force (an entity established to combat money laundering by the seven leading economic powers in the world) recently recommended to Iran that it 'fully address the deficiencies related to combating money laundering and especially countering support for terrorism.' On the other hand, the impact of crippling sanctions (a term used by Hillary Clinton) regarding nuclear activities is now not hidden from anyone, even Ayatollah Khamenei. Just as today Nasrallah, previously Ayatollah Khamenei repeatedly denied the impact of sanctions. However, he ultimately had to yield; what he called heroic flexibility! Therefore, firstly, one can doubt Nasrallah's denial of the impact of sanctions on Hezbollah, and secondly, it can be believed that Nasrallah's words mean nothing other than providing a roadmap for new sanctions on Iran. Now, if sanctions on Iran regarding support for terrorism did not begin during Obama's era, how many months will it take before Trump or Hillary Clinton enters the White House, each of whom has a hardline stance against Iran, to impose new sanctions on Iran, for which Hassan Nasrallah has provided the exact address.