The speech was rather effective for Nasrallah: in that he was not tense or angry as he seemed to be in recent speeches. It was his old usual self: humorous and sarcastic. But that is about tone and theatrics. Politically, it was a weak speech especially on the Arab revolutions. He of course could not tell us why he can support the uprising in Tunisia and Egypt and Bahrain but not in Syria. His arguments were not convincing at all. He said that the difference is that Bashshar is more open. Open? Where? The prisons and dungeons are open but that is about it. He wants the Syrians to support the Syrian dictatorship which is an untenable position to take, historically speaking. He then invoked the Syrian intervention in the Lebanese civil war: an intervention that entailed massacres by the Syrian army right, left, and center, including massacres of Hizbullah fighters in Fathallah barracks in February 1987. This is not to mention the intervention by Syria on the side of Israel's clients like in 1976. He argues that Syrian regime should be supported because the alternative would be a client of Israel. That sounds insulting to the Syrian people: who says that Syrian people would not be more anti-Israel: although it is certain that Saudi Arabia and Israel will work hard to sponsor and cuddle whatever regime comes after Asad. So Hizbullah's strong stance on Bahrain and it weak stance on Syria can only reinforce the sectarian reputation of its foreign policy orientations.