Read the news, and you’d be ready to break out the bubbly. “The results represent a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria,” wrote the New York Times. “[A] stunning setback to the Iranian-backed militants,” said Fox News. “[A] humiliating defeat,” said abc.

Sunday’s election in Lebanon saw the governing majority—an alliance of pro-Western and anti-Iran, anti-Syria forces—weather a strong challenge from the Hezbollah-led opposition. Fears that Hezbollah would take over didn’t materialize. Of 128 legislative seats, Hezbollah’s alliance actually dropped one, from 58 to 57. The pro-Western bloc gained a seat, now having 68. Independents fill the other three seats.

“The victory of pro-Western forces in Lebanon’s elections is a relief for U.S. officials,” to whom Hezbollah is officially a terrorist group, wrote Reuters. The Associated Press went further, saying that the election result not only hurt Hezbollah, it also gave “a boost to Barack Obama’s Middle East peace policy.” AP practically gave President Obama credit, saying, “Coming just days after the American president reached out to the Muslim world, the vote undercuts the most militant force in Lebanese politics.” The Guardian openly attributed the victory to “the Obama effect.” “[T]he calmer, unconfrontational tone adopted by Washington on Middle East issues since George Bush trudged home to Texas appears to have struck a chord,” it said. “Lebanon has provided Obama with his first significant regional policy success.”

Wishful thinking.

The real story is more complex, and far less reassuring.

In truth, Hezbollah had no intention of taking over the government of Lebanon. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said as much before the election. He promoted Maronite Christian Michel Aoun as leader of the Hezbollah political bloc. Hezbollah itself only stood 11 candidates, all of whom won. Its popularity among the Lebanese is unchanged.

Hezbollah is perfectly satisfied with its current position in Lebanon: as the political opposition with veto power. That position will remain—just watch.

The fact is, Hezbollah has Lebanon’s strongest military force. That is its trump card. In May of 2008, when it was dissatisfied with its treatment by the government, Hezbollah—at the direction of its benefactors in Iran—declared war. In a single day, Iranian Guardsmen and Hezbollah gunmen took over the streets of West Beirut, blockaded the airport, shut down pro-government news outlets, and besieged the headquarters of Lebanese leaders Fouad Siniora and Saad Hariri. Remarkably, however, once they secured these gains, they did not complete the coup. Instead, they turned everything back over to the Lebanese Army and stepped aside—simply demanding the power of veto in the Lebanese cabinet.

Thus, once again in the Middle East, terrorists purchased more political power through violence. Yet the U.S. and the international community ignored this act of war. Instead, nations gave their blessing to the Doha accord that followed, which guaranteed that the Lebanese cabinet would be one-third Hezbollah, who could kneecap any potential attempts to disarm its militia. (Read our August 2008 article “Iran Conquered Lebanon … Now What?” on the significance of this electrifying event.)

Hezbollah has already conquered the nation, for all practical purposes—but it is not interested in governing. To characterize its failure to win a legislative majority as a stunning setback and a humiliating defeat ignores the reality of what it is really there to accomplish. Iran only wants to preserve it as a weapon for future use against Israel. Its military objectives are most vital, and the business of governing Lebanon would only complicate matters at this point.

There should be no doubt that Hezbollah will seek to retain its grip on Lebanon. The day after the election, Nasrallah told a national television audience that Hezbollah accepted the results “in a sporting spirit”—but made clear that it would not permit the new government to take its weapons.

Hariri—the majority coalition leader, who is expected to become the new prime minister—campaigned on an anti-Hezbollah platform, and promised to strip the organization of its veto power. Now that he has won, he is in a pickle. If he backs out of his promise, he angers his supporters. But as Hilal Khashan of the American University in Beirut told the Washington Post, “If Hariri forms a cabinet and does not give the opposition veto power, Hezbollah will march into Beirut the next morning” (emphasis mine).

Watch what happens. Since May of last year, all key decisions by the government have required Hezbollah’s approval. If the new government makes a move to alter this status quo, expect the streets yet again to flow with blood.

The dominant player in this scenario is Hezbollah’s chief patron, Iran. Where Syria’s relationship with Hezbollah has been strained recently, Iran’s has never been tighter. Iran floods Hezbollah with money, training and weapons; it gives Hezbollah its directions, its ideology. According to Stratfor, its Revolutionary Guard Corps directly run the group from the Iranian Embassy in Beirut.

The top terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world, Iran has control of the Gaza Strip via Hamas and Lebanon via Hezbollah. (Watch the attached video from last year, where Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry describes these two terrorist groups as Iran’s “horns,” by which it is fulfilling a crucial biblical prophecy.) Iran is encircling Israel. A grab for the West Bank is next, with Jerusalem as the ultimate prize.

Lebanon’s election does nothing to alter the fundamental reality that everything is going Iran’s way. The media can spin it as an Obama foreign-policy coup, but look at the broader picture. America wants to pull out of Iraq, and is desperate for solutions in Afghanistan. Iran has deftly positioned itself as the solution in both arenas. The U.S. is conceding that fact; it is simply in no position to resist. Its protests over Iran’s nuclear program are effectively over (“Iran has legitimate [nuclear] energy … aspirations,” President Obama said last week). So it certainly won’t utter a peep about Hezbollah retaining control of Lebanon, especially with headlines praising the election results as being evidence of “the Obama effect.”

Iran has done a remarkable job of securing a strong foothold in West-leaning Lebanon. It is one proof among many of the vigor of a Middle Eastern power prophesied to emerge in the end time that Scripture refers to as the king of the south.