The phrase “yawash yawash” (little by little) – uttered by Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, in the context of tensions with Israel – has become a trend, making him a contender for social media stardom.
This phrase did not appear in Nasrallah’s speech randomly but as part of the philosophy and general objectives of his discourse. Nasrallah realized that his audience had grown weary of threats and promises, and that the cost of Hezbollah’s behavior in Lebanon had escalated.
Lebanon, already facing many accumulated problems, would now potentially be subject to a wide-scale Israeli attack in response to any major military operation the political party might carry out, either in retaliation for the killing of one of its senior leaders, Fuad Shukr, or participating with Iran in its potential attack against Israel – or both.
In light of this awareness, Nasrallah resorted to absorbing anger and repeatedly emphasizing the need to “act calmly... patiently... deliberately and also courageously, not emotionally. It’s not like ’he hit me, let’s hit back’... Yawash yawash... Little by little.” However, he overlooked the fact that Hezbollah’s audience and supporters no longer have any confidence in such statements, and that there is a vast gap between their expectations and the party leader’s attempts to exaggerate any operation carried out by the paramilitary group against Israel.
It is likely that this time, Iranian leaders have been pushing Nasrallah to try to lend more credibility to their threats against Israel, especially since their response to the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus and the killing of senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders (Brig.-Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi and seven other Quds Force officers) has turned into a source of mockery and ridicule of the Iranian regime and its theatrical attack.
This explains the transformation of a Lebanese militia leader into an outspoken mouthpiece for the Iranian regime, reminding the world that the Iranians “slaughter with cotton,” alluding to their patience.
This is largely true and has been particularly reflected during the repeated marathon of Iranian nuclear program negotiations, whether before the catastrophic 2015 agreement signed by the Obama administration, or over the past three years of the Biden administration, in which Iran gained numerous strategic concessions from the Americans in the hope of ultimately reviving the nuclear agreement – which of course did not happen.
Artificial cohesion
NASRALLAH FULLY realizes that the decision to respond to Shukr’s assassination is not in his hands but in Tehran’s. And Iran’s decision this time is not in its own hands either, but depends largely on the positions of Russia and China, on whom the Islamic Republic relies heavily for diplomatic support, at least in case the war expands.
This matter depends, in turn, on the calculations of the Kremlin, which will necessarily conduct a precise strategic inventory of gains and losses in case the US becomes preoccupied with a major war in the Middle East, and the impact of this on the Ukrainian crisis. Consequently, Russia will determine its interests and then convince the Iranian side of what it deems appropriate for both parties.
The same applies to China, which will measure the repercussions of a war breaking out between Iran and Israel on its interests as well as on its relations with America within the framework of the broader conflict between the two great powers.
In light of the above, it can be said that the “yawash yawash” approach is a desperate attempt to show artificial cohesion, and merely a painkiller to absorb anger among his followers due to the successive losses of the militia. It is an attempt to feed the state of anxiety that Nasrallah and his Iranian allies imagine exists among Israeli and American leaders. However, the truth is that he is fully aware of what’s behind the scenes.
Nasrallah knows that targeting him personally is a possibility and not at all unlikely, but this remains subject to Israel’s own calculations. As it turns out, the party’s intelligence service is deeply infiltrated, following the targeting of its high-ranking leaders as well as Iranian military leaders and advisers who were under the party’s protection in the past period.
Many know that Iran has a long history in applying the strategy of patience, and that Nasrallah’s talk about “slaughtering with cotton” is another expression of this strategy. However, this time he is trying to lift the enormous pressure on the Iranian regime to respond to Hamas political leader Ismael Haniyeh’s assassination by employing his position as a militia leader in direct confrontation with Israel, transferring the pressure to the other side.
WAGING A comprehensive war against Israel does not occur to Nasrallah, and there are several reasons for this in my opinion. First, the Hezbollah militia does not have a real national cause in its alleged hostility with Israel; it is merely an agent for Iran in its extended geostrategic conflict with the Jewish state, operating within a system known as the “axis of resistance.”
Therefore, neither it nor its leader are decision-makers or have a cause of their own. Their position is entirely linked to the instructions sent to them by the Revolutionary Guard. This is why we find that Nasrallah did not speak in his recent speech about a decision specific to the party regarding the response to the assassination of Fuad Shukr, but clearly and definitely tied the matter to those who “slaughter with cotton.”
All of the above does not negate that there is a possibility of some military escalation carried out by the party in implementation of Iranian directives. However, Nasrallah has shown what remains of his cards, and that he is merely an exposed arm of Iran and not a party or Lebanese militia defending a cause that concerns the Lebanese people. Lebanon has nothing to do with what Nasrallah is doing with Israel, and the Lebanese are not able to bear another bill for these militias’ association with a suspicious alliance with Iran.
The “yawash yawash” theory is scandalously revealing of Iran’s and its proxies’ manipulation of the fates of the region’s peoples and countries.
The writer is a UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate.