December 20, 2024
Nasser Kandil
Those promoting the narrative of the resistance axis collapsing and the success of the American-Israeli project in defeating resistance forces claim that a U.S.-Israeli victory over the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine has been achieved, adding to their supposed triumph in Syria. They now assert that Yemen is next, suggesting that the targeted campaigns against it are the beginning of a predetermined trajectory aimed at erasing Yemen from the regional map. But is this assumption valid?
A closer look at the regional landscape leads us to pose critical questions – keys to objectively evaluating gains and losses. Was the extended U.S.-Israeli project over the past 15 months merely an attempt to harm the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine? Or was it based on a strategic calculation recognising that, after the al-Aqsa Flood operation and the Lebanese support front, the resistance had become an existential threat to the occupying entity? This calculation suggested that coexistence with the resistance was no longer possible, as recent events demonstrated that no guarantees or controls could prevent repeated existential threats to the territories occupied in 1948 as long as these resistance forces remained on the borders. The only perceived solution, then, was the removal and eradication of this resistance as a precondition for the entity’s existential stability. So, has this goal been achieved?
The very fact that the occupying entity resorted to a ceasefire agreement with the resistance in Lebanon – without securing the concessions it initially demanded and after negotiating under fire – indicates that the resistance successfully imposed its terms. The entity was forced to retreat and accept a ceasefire without gains. This agreement effectively returned the situation to Resolution 1701, which represents a coexistence phase with an armed resistance under the guarantees of a UN resolution. Ironically, the war itself was launched to render this phase obsolete, under the premise that coexistence was no longer viable. Returning to it signifies the failure of the war to eliminate the existential threat, as evidenced by the failure of both the ground front and the internal front to shield themselves from the resistance’s fire. Claims that subsequent developments in Syria impacted the resistance’s supply lines are unconvincing, as these supply lines, while critical in the past, have become less vital due to the resistance’s advancements in manufacturing, particularly in drones and upgraded Kornet missiles. These weapons played a pivotal role in the ground battles and posed a significant challenge to the occupying army’s Iron Dome during the war.
Similarly, in Gaza, the occupying entity agreed to a ceasefire with the resistance while fully aware that it had failed to dismantle the resistance or neutralise its capabilities. Its forces were bleeding under the resistance’s blows, more severely than at the war’s onset. Ending the war while the resistance remains intact signifies a return to coexistence with an armed resistance – one that, as demonstrated by the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, has evolved into an existential threat. The resistance has proven its ability to sustain this threat even under siege, making future repetitions likely. The war has failed to ensure existential security for the occupying entity or eliminate the strategic threat posed by the resistance. Ironically, those declaring the resistance’s defeat attribute it to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to plunge the Middle East into chaos unless the war ended before his return to the White House, claiming this indicates a U.S. intention to target Iran. But why, then, didn’t the occupying entity keep the war ongoing until Trump’s arrival, if this would have secured its desired outcome – American military action against Iran?
Turning to Yemen, we can ask: is the measure of victory or defeat the U.S.-Israeli targeting of Yemen, or is it something else? Yemen, despite its weakness, poverty, and hunger, has successfully challenged American prestige and deterrence capabilities in the Red Sea, one of the world’s most critical waterways, as highlighted in annual U.S. military strategy reports. This challenge translated into preventing vessels belonging to or destined for the occupying entity from passing through, culminating in the closure of Eilat port due to halted maritime traffic. Has the U.S.-Israeli effort succeeded in eliminating this threat? The answer is simple: open Eilat port and observe whether ships are crowding its docks. Is that the reality?
A closer examination of the anti-resistance narrative reveals it to be mere optical illusion, relying on stereotypical imagery that substitutes discussions of defeat with enumerations of losses. A bit of attention exposes this deception, revealing that while the resistance forces have paid a high price, they have preserved the balance of power – and continue to maintain it.
