December 05, 2024
Nasser Kandil
• Understanding the trajectory of wars requires stepping back from the immediate moment and avoiding immersion in its details. Only then can observers discern the broader path, outline the models emerging from war strategies, and anticipate the outcomes. The lethal package deployed against Hezbollah during Lebanon’s war from September 17 to 27 followed a clear escalation beginning with the detonation of pager devices – a massive blow that targeted the resistances environment and removed 4,000 members from active duty. The lethal package culminated in an even greater strike, the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
The objective was clear: to dismantle a formidable force on the battlefield – one that demonstrated steadfastness at the frontlines, advanced combat skills, and remarkable evasion and concealment abilities, even under intense aerial surveillance and bombardment. This force maintained persistent and regular firepower, including the daily launch of rockets into settlements and military positions in occupied northern Palestine.
The strategy employed was a lethal, top-down approach aimed at incapacitating this force by breaking its fighting spirit and severing the command-and-control links connecting it to Hezbollah’s leadership. Without prior knowledge of the attack, preventing it is undoubtedly unfeasible. However, Hezbollah’s countermeasure lay in its preemptive planning, designed to thwart the objectives of such operations. As Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem revealed, Sayyed Nasrallah himself had devised contingency plans to fortify both the front lines and the support network under various scenarios, including the possibility of his own assassination.
• Despite the substantial damage inflicted by the lethal package, it ultimately failed to achieve its overarching goal of breaking Lebanon’s resistance. The occupying entity’s army, having reached the point of exhaustion and unable to continue effectively on the battlefield, failed to accomplish the objectives set by the lethal package. This failure rendered a ceasefire not a discretionary choice for leaders in Washington or Tel Aviv but an inevitable necessity – an outcome that extended over months or even years as the occupying entity’s army had reached its operational limits.
As military options waned, attention shifted to the terms and mechanisms of the ceasefire, aiming to maximise gains and mitigate losses. Central to this strategy were measures to cut off the resistance’s supply routes.
To avoid a repeat of the outcome from the mutual preparations between 2006 and 2024, Syria’s role becomes pivotal in shaping the next confrontation between the occupying army and the resistance. This is not only due to its intrinsic geopolitical and geostrategic significance but also because the decade-long war against it sought to redefine its pivotal position. Any shift in Syria’s stance becomes a driving force for transformative change across the region.
• The Aleppo campaign marked a pivotal shift, initiating a U.S.-Israeli role reversal on the regional map. The strategy sought to replicate Syria’s years-long ‘sub-war’ model – sustained targeting without full-scale warfare, as seen in Lebanon – while exporting the lethal package concept from Lebanon to Syria. The Aleppo campaign itself displayed elements of this strategy, with unconventional strikes reminiscent of the pager attack, positioning the U.S. in a central military and security role, much like its involvement in the assassination of martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. This raised concerns about even harsher future blows aimed at causing widespread chaos and demoralising Syrian forces, ultimately disrupting Syria’s role as a critical supply hub for the resistance.
Syria has demonstrated an acute awareness of these threats, preparing countermeasures and contingency plans to address worst-case scenarios. The Syrian leadership, displaying calculated patience, has engaged in extensive diplomatic activity, forming alliances that strengthen its position while awaiting clarity on the broader trajectory of these attacks. Despite the military gains achieved by adversaries, Syria’s political and diplomatic victories have been more significant, as evidenced by the faltering rhetoric of Turkish President Recep Erdoğan, tasked with leading this phase of the confrontation.
• A preemptive response to neutralize or contain the remaining phases of the lethal package involves isolating Erdoğan’s maneuverability. It is clear that Turkey’s role in this war mirrors a chess strategy known as ‘castling’ where a rook swaps positions with the king – the king being the occupying entity- to mitigate immediate pressure and danger facing the king. The response strategy to ‘castling’ is isolating the rook by placing it under threat and forcing it to make protective moves away from the king it’s supposed to be protecting.
The recent assertive diplomatic engagements by Russia, Iran, and Iraq seems to signal efforts to constrain Turkey’s role forcing it into defensive moves that avoid an undesired confrontation with major powers.
Syria is laying the groundwork for a regional and international coalition to combat terrorism, turning Washington and Tel Aviv’s designs in Aleppo into opportunities. Rather than focusing on supply lines to the resistance, attention is shifting to the broader threat of a resurgent terrorist presence. This approach underscores the futility of reconciling anti-terrorism claims with hostility toward the Syrian state, especially when economic sanctions and political isolation undermine Syria’s capacity to address shared challenges.
• The U.S.’s attempt to reconcile Turkey and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), fostering their cooperation against the Syrian State, represents a meticulous effort to secure advantages in this round of the ‘lethal package’ that threatens the Syria-Iraq line. However, when Iraq’s government -not the resistance alone- shows alignment with Syria, coupled with coordination among the military chiefs of Syria, Russia, Iran, and Iraq, it disrupts this scheme. This high-level cooperation elevates the confrontation from grassroots resistance to state-led efforts, reflecting the gravity of the current challenges. It is clear that the region is navigating a critical juncture, with all players laying their cards on the table.
