Analysis of Iran's Influence in Lebanon

Tehran's agents. Iran's agents. Iran's agents.

Agents. Iran. Iran.

And its agents. Agents. Agents. Agents.

With the dawn of Lebanese popular resistance following the invasion

of 1982, the Zionist war machine found itself

in a moral and military predicament. How could a

regular army be defeated by local farmers and resistance fighters?

Israel has fallen.

At the direct instigation of the Zionist intelligence services, Aman

and Mossad began promoting the term “Iran’s

arms.”

Arms in the Middle East. Iran’s patron. Arms. Iran’s arms.

The criminal war minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, was the first

to inject this term into political and media circles.

The term “Iran’s agents” quickly spread to strip the resistance

of its national character and portray it as a foreign body

planted in Lebanese soil.

Months later, documented historical sources, including the

U.S. State Department archives, show a radical

and surprising shift in Washington’s official political lexicon.

After American reports had clearly referred to

local resistance fighters defending

their occupied lands, that narrative stopped entirely,

and American politicians and media began using the term

Iran's proxies as one of the fruits of the cooperation

agreement, military and strategic, signed between the Zionist entity

and the United States in November 1983.

Washington fully adopted the Israeli narrative.

The term "arms" was whitewashed in its Hebrew sense

and turned into the global diplomatic term "Iran's proxies."

George Shultz is considered the first

American politician to coin the term in 1984,

following the Lebanese resistance operation

that had not yet been called Hezbollah, which

targeted the Marines in Beirut.

At the behest of U.S. and Zionist intelligence circles,

Shultz sought, in his famous speech on terrorism and the modern world,

to turn resistance against the Zionist occupation into a crime

international, as an extension of foreign action

aimed at legitimizing the use of force against the Lebanese resistance.

The U.S. secretary of state said verbatim,

“We must be prepared to use force, for these are nothing but

Tehran’s proxies, and they must not be treated as local movements,

but as arms of a rogue state.”

Amid the raging war over terminology, its spread,

and entrenchment, attempts continued to establish the lie

of Iran’s proxies by portraying popular movements and armed resistance

against the invaders as though they were fabricated crises

instigated from abroad. Mumford explains in

his book, <i>Proxy Warfare</i>, on page 40,

that the purpose of the term is to deny them

legitimacy and their inherent right to resist and confront

invasion.

The Reagan administration’s adoption of the term “proxy” was a strategy

to delegitimize local movements by labeling them as proxies.

Washington was able to turn complex civil conflicts into

fronts in a global struggle, giving it the moral

and legal justification for intervention.

Another piece of evidence comes from Pentagon documents, in which the historian

David Crist reveals in his investigative book Twilight

War how the resistance fighter was turned into an agent within

an intelligence-media propaganda campaign seeking to ensure the continued flow of

American weapons and money to the Israeli enemy entity.

The author confirmed that the term “Iranian proxies” is a

functional lie designed to market the idea of targeting the resistance before

Western public opinion as an international security necessity,

rather than the repression of a people demanding its freedom. David Crist

explains how the term was used as a legal loophole

to circumvent the public opposition at the time to funding the

Zionists’ wars in the region.

The term “Iranian proxies” was the magic key that allowed

the administration to bypass the restrictions of the War Powers Act.

It portrayed the matter as self-defense against the aggression of a foreign state

through intermediaries, rather than involvement in a war against local

resistance.

A study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies shows

clearly how such terms aim to alienate

The resistance fighter from his environment in order to break the psychological bond between

the resistance and its popular base, portraying

the resistance fighters as mercenaries, not people with a cause.

The study states in its introduction, on page eight:

The aim of Western discourse is to diminish these resistance fighters

through the term "proxy," turning them into

functional tools stripped of free will,

a framing that allowed international powers to impose

sanctions and launch military strikes, considering

them legitimate targets.

Historical evidence continues to show that Zionism

is behind the term "Iran's proxies" or "arms."

Tracing the history of the term's origin and source proves

that it was an intelligence fabrication, launched in

the 1980s as diplomatic and military cover to turn

resistance resulting from occupation and repression into cross-border mercenarism,

thereby legitimizing its elimination

and targeting it outside the United Nations charters that

guarantee peoples the right to self-determination and to resist

invaders.