Tariq Alhomayed: "Lebanon's collapse is incidental, as long as it serves the agenda of Tehran, Damascus and Hezbollah"

Amazing the clarity that results from a bit of sympathy with Lebanese who don't want to be sacrificed to Hezbollah's agenda:

[...] Why did Nasrallah consider Lebanon the front line with Israel and not Syria? Isn't Syria embroiled in conflict with Israel regarding the occupied Golan Heights and Israel's violation of Syrian air space from time to time? Besides, it is not implausible that Israel would target Syria itself? Why then should Lebanon alone be deemed "the battleground?"

Moreover, after the plethora of accusations against Israel, we witness a Syrian-Iranian controversy involving Hezbollah over the Mughniyeh investigation conducted by Damascus, with Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Al-Muallem promising to reveal the culprits through hard evidence, after hurling accusations against Israel.

Why then would this clash take place especially since all parties involved have already condemned Israel?

So why then would an investigation be conducted in the first place when there is an established belief that Israel is behind the assassination? Or is there information that has yet to be disclosed to public?

The truth is that a strong tremor has hit the Tehran, Damascus and Beirut alliance. Although this will not result in the demise of the alliance, it has revealed a number important facts to us.

It revealed that the three allies are in agreement regarding Lebanon's designation as the front line against Israel.

Here Lebanon's collapse is incidental, as long as [it] serves the agenda of Tehran, Damascus and Hezbollah. [...]

Tags: Hezbollah, Mughniyeh, Iran, Syria, Israel, Nasrallah