Had to read the entire article several times to sort through the seemingly contradictory theories espoused. My initial inclination was to criticize the piece because there is simply not objective support for the meme that the “need to govern” has or will cause Hizb’allah to “moderate” it views and that such “moderation” explains Hizb’allah’s “failure” to support Hamas in the latest conflagration.

On re-reading the article, however, it is apparent that the reporter furnishes a generally objective and accurate analysis, namely that Hizb’allah has more important and pressing concerns, including the civil war that threatens to overthrow its protector in Syria and questions concerning Iran.

The final paragraph of the piece provides, in my view, a far more telling account of Hizb’allah’s failure to “act” in support of Hamas:

Bottom line on Hezbollah for Cressey: “They will only take only action if it’s in their organization’s strategic interest, and events in Gaza do not apply.”

Iranian client and Shi’a movement Hizb’allah has more important things to deal with at the moment than supporting the Sunni/Muslim Brotherhood backed Hamas in Gaza in a way that might invite Hizb’allah’s opponents within Lebanon to turn on it. That, and only that, explains Hizb’allah’s muted response to the recent flare-up between Israel and the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip.