October 09, 2024
Nasser Kandil
• It must be acknowledged that Hezbollah’s resilience, and its ability to restore its presence, strength, and vitality, is itself a victory. This is particularly significant given the magnitude of the U.S.-Israeli decision to transform the war from one that would create new balances of power for future settlements and ceasefire agreements, into a war of eradication – an attempt to settle old scores with Hezbollah. This was seen as an opportunity to revive the vision of a “new Middle East” through new equations, aiming to eliminate Hezbollah from the regional scene. The Americans had been preparing a lethal package for over a decade, anticipating a moment when the Middle East would enter a zero-sum phase: either complete victory or total defeat. The idea of freezing Middle Eastern conflicts to focus on Russia and China was no longer seen as sufficient.
• Any objective and fair observer of the current war that Hezbollah is confronting must admit that what is unfolding on the southern front, with the resistance’s military superiority against the massive war machinery of the occupying army, resembles a major war. It is also clear that the steady and consistent missile strikes on settlements in northern occupied Palestine, as well as on military sites and bases, demonstrate that despite the intense strikes Hezbollah has endured – targeting its leadership, infrastructure, and missile capabilities – the command and control system remains operational and intact.
• Throughout the period of relentless strikes against Hezbollah, culminating in the assassination of its Secretary-General, and marked by the destruction of communication systems, air raids across the south, Bekaa Valley, and southern suburbs of Beirut, which have claimed the lives of several top military commanders and field leaders, the resistance’s supporters endured existential anxiety about its future. Meanwhile, its enemies revelled in what they perceived as its weakening. However, the key factor that contributed to the perception of retreat wasn’t the battlefield, where the resistance consistently proved its capability, nor was it the persistent missile fire, which has symbolised the support for Gaza for a year, even under the most difficult conditions. Rather, it was the apparent failure to activate the deterrence equation that the resistance had previously promised – an equation that had underpinned Lebanon’s stability for two decades. Both critics and supporters alike questioned the absence of the “Tel Aviv for Dahiya” equation.
• Hezbollah’s leadership understood that by deciding to break the longstanding rules of engagement on the southern border to open a front in support of Gaza, it was also suspending the deterrence equations. These equations had been based on defence, not offence; they were conditional upon the occupying entity being the initiator of fire, not Hezbollah. When the strikes on Dahiya began, and the resistance absorbed successive blows, it became clear to Hezbollah that the internal calm surrounding its decision to support Gaza, despite public objections, was due to its success in shielding deeper areas of Lebanon – such as the capital, key facilities like the airport, port, and power infrastructure – from the repercussions of its decision. Hezbollah bore the brunt of the losses within its own ranks and its support base, with countless martyrs, wounded, and the destruction and displacement of towns and villages along the frontlines, home to many of its supporters. The resistance was acutely aware that activating the “Dahiya for Tel Aviv” equation would open the door for the aggression to target Lebanon’s capital and vital infrastructure, shifting the political environment from the calm that had lasted for eleven months to a new phase of internal strife that would redefine the dynamics of the war itself.
• What Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary-General, said about the resistance regaining its vitality and ability to confront the war’s challenges – and his emphasis on the soundness of its missile capabilities and the effectiveness of its command and control systems – was swiftly proven. Just as he finished his remarks, more than 100 ‘Fadi 1’ missiles were launched at Haifa, hitting both residential and commercial areas. For the first time, Hezbollah’s statement on the attack deviated from its traditional formula, “In support of our steadfast Palestinian people in Gaza, and in support of their valiant and honourable resistance, and in defence of Lebanon and its people, in response to the savage Israeli assault on towns and civilians”. While this wording had been standard in previous missile strike announcements, the statement on Haifa introduced a more specific narrative: “In support of our steadfast Palestinian people in Gaza, and in support of their valiant and honourable resistance, and in defence of Lebanon and its people, in response to the targeting of civilians in the southern suburbs of Beirut, the Islamic Resistance fighters launched a large salvo of rockets at Haifa and Kryot at 12:30 PM on Tuesday, October 8, 2024”.
• This new equation, which will require days of consistent action to solidify, is already showing its impact – through displacement, anxiety, and growing questions about the war’s trajectory and the future of Haifa, the occupying entity’s second-largest city, and its economic infrastructure. These developments will inevitably influence the future targeting of the southern suburbs of Beirut and potentially the course of the entire war. This should bring reassurance to the resistance’s supporters and frustrate its enemies, as the resistance has not only maintained its strength but is also reviving its deterrence equations. It stands ready to enact the “Tel Aviv for Beirut” equation should the occupying entity dare to target the Lebanese capital, alongside parallel equations such as “airport for airport” and “port for port”. In doing so, Hezbollah retains its original role as Lebanon’s defender, ensuring internal stability while allowing the deterrence equations to evolve in step with the developments on the ground in the ongoing war.
