December 23, 2024
Nasser Kandil
• In just about a month, the Resistance Axis in the Levant saw significant developments. In Lebanon, after enduring severe blows and a comprehensive war, the resistance shifted its narrative for a ceasefire. Instead of framing it as support for Gaza, the Lebanese resistance linked it to the defense of Lebanon. The condition for halting fire on the Lebanese front became contingent upon the occupying entity’s acceptance of a return to Resolution 1701, moving away from the earlier prerequisite of ceasing fire in Gaza. If the resistance in Lebanon manages to endure and emerge victorious from this war, imposing the return to Resolution 1701 on the occupying entity, it would achieve two critical objectives: 1. Inflicting a military defeat on the occupying army, forcing it to accept a ceasefire without its stated conditions of eliminating the resistance and reaching the Litani River; 2. Compelling the occupying entity to halt its war on a front as dangerous as Lebanon within a legal and security framework that acknowledges coexistence with an armed and capable resistance on its borders. This, despite the earlier justification for the wars on Gaza and subsequently Lebanon, being the claimed impossibility of such coexistence.
By draining the occupying entity to the point of capitulation to terms other than its own, the resistance weakens its ability, resolve, and morale to continue its war on Gaza. Moreover, the acceptance of coexistence with a formidable resistance on Lebanon’s borders sets a precedent for accepting a similar situation regarding Gaza. This belief solidified the conviction within the Lebanese resistance that waging this war under its new banner is, in itself, a novel form of support for Gaza’s resistance.
• While the war on Gaza persisted, a ceasefire was declared on the Lebanese front. The outcomes of these developments will take time to unfold, but events in Syria introduced a dramatic shift akin to an earthquake shaking the region. Its aftershocks impacted the resistance forces, suggesting a strategic blow to the resistance in Lebanon. In Iraq, discussions began on avoiding the consequences of Syrian developments. Chief among these was the call for resistance forces to cease operations against the occupying entity to alleviate U.S. pressure that Iraq could not bear, alongside preparing for the possibility of renewed threats from ISIS, as noted by several Iraqi leaders. Consequently, Iraqi resistance appeared to withdraw – or was on the verge of withdrawing – from the scene.
• At this critical juncture, a dual escalation emerged on the Gaza and Yemeni fronts. Observers noted an increase in both the frequency and intensity of operations in Gaza. Daily resistance actions rose to between five and six operations, with qualitative changes in their execution. These ranged from complex targeting of multiple military vehicles in single operations to intensive, multi-pronged assaults on occupying soldiers and officers. For example, over the past two days, resistance factions announced 12 operations, including artillery and rocket bombardments, the targeting of two tanks and a bulldozer, close-range confrontations with six soldiers, the sniping of a soldier, and a notable operation where a single fighter stabbed multiple soldiers, seized their weapons, and another executed a suicide attack with an explosive belt amidst soldiers and military vehicles while disguised as an occupying soldier.
• Yemen entered the fray with remarkable weight in support of Gaza. Each day brought a major development from the Yemeni front: swarms of drones targeting the port of Eilat, hypersonic missiles striking Tel Aviv, or coordinated operations against U.S. warships in the Red Sea. Over the past two days, Yemeni hypersonic missiles struck deep into the occupying entity’s territory, while a remarkable operation targeted aircraft carriers and warships with 17 cruise missiles and 8 drones. This created a firestorm of confusion for U.S. forces, culminating in the downing of an American F-18 fighter jet.
• The events on the Gaza and Yemeni fronts revived and underscored the importance of the concept of ‘unity of battlefronts’. This unity is not solely about synchronising all fronts but also about certain fronts compensating for the momentum lost when others are forced out of the confrontation due to the pressures and consequences of war.
