The Resistance: Cause, Context, and Current State

The victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 meant the inception of a new vision in the region versus that of American hegemony. A nexus was quickly established with the Lebanese, where the Islamic Resistance would then emerge throughout the 1980s. From across the border, the Zionist entity was watching its advantage slowly fade as its enemies grew more powerful and developed an alliance. In 2000, the Islamic Resistance expelled the Zionists from Lebanese territory; and in 2006, “israel” was defeated by the Islamic Resistance in the July War.

It became clear that Hezbollah had transformed into a dynamic force. In an attempt to contain this force, in 2008, Hajj Imad Mughniyeh was assassinated in Syria. Sayyed Nasrallah delivered a speech emphasizing that the assassination did not paralyze the Islamic Resistance which was prepared to face any potential transgression.^[1] But the plot was certainly crystallizing.

Only a few years later, the turmoil in Syria began. Syria was to an extent the artery of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, which in turn is the artery of the Palestinian Resistance. Destabilizing Syria was meant to be a prerequisite to the normalization project.

For the masses in the region to tolerate normalization, the alternative of resistance had to be eliminated as both a theory and practice. People had to have a general understanding that the historical phase of rejecting “israel” was over. This is why Western states and their allies in the Arab region put their financial, military, ideological, and media weight into the Syrian War.

The Islamic Resistance interpreted this context with great accuracy and realized it was an attempt to end the Palestinian cause by cutting said artery. The sectarian polish given to the war was an unthinkably violent conspiracy that simultaneously constituted a religious obligation. The Islamic Resistance had to act, so it made its way into Syria which otherwise would have fallen. In sum, those who fought to sustain Syria fought to protect the future of resistance and self-determination in the region. And in the very same way, those who sold Syria were selling Palestine. Later, the Palestinian Resistance understood this.

In January 2020, Hajj Qassem Soleimani, the leading architect of the Resistance Axis’ integration strategy was assassinated in Iraq. Packaged with the ‘Deal of the Century’ which was announced later that month, the assassination further expressed the objective to terminate the movement of resistance in the region. That is why Sayyed Nasrallah said the proper response to the assassination of Hajj Qassem would be to target “the American military presence in the region.”^[2] It was a message that he understood the trajectory and the comprehension of what was taking place.

After a decade, the tipping point in Palestine came around and the Palestinian Resistance had to act. On 7 October 2023, it carried out the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation. Politicians, the media, and influential personalities quickly manufactured the fraudulent narrative required, and in the blink of an eye, the Zionist entity began a genocidal mass-murder campaign with the support and protection of the U.S and global allies under pretexts as indefensible as ‘retaliation.’ The people of the region stormed the streets and protested against the atrocities carried out by the Zionist entity against the Palestinians.

Hezbollah joined the war as a supportive front on October 8th, but its leader – Sayyed Nasrallah – did not speak until later. It is no exaggeration to say the entire world was in a pause. Leading up to the Sayyed’s speech, the masses proceeded in their demonstrations and were calling upon the Sayyed to wage a full-fledged total war on the Zionist entity. ‘Do it and we are with you,’ they cried. Although many of them were sincere, to most it was like shivering in the cold – natural and undecided.

But the distinguishing attribute in legitimate Islamic leaders – and this is another reason why the religious underpinning is imperative and ignoring it is the opposite of objective – is that because they emerge from the masses, they understand them. They know the actual ‘mass’ of popular will. They know the role of creed and worldview in the path to liberation. They know the inevitable phases and decisions that ought to occur for people to have revolutionary capacity in critical and sensitive moments. And as a result, the Sayyed knew that those societies had been neutralized and decapitated – ideologically and strategically – long before Al-Aqsa Flood.

He knew the Axis was alone in this. He knew those promises would never come to fruition and that many had already accepted normalization because their leaders did. That is the human pattern and historical tradition. Accordingly, he made the brilliant strategic decision to maintain a supportive front and coordinate for a war of attrition with gradual escalation instead of waging total war.

He was correct: eleven months into the war, hundreds of millions of people have proven incapable of imposing a different posture upon their leaders through ordinary political means. With the exception of the Resistance Axis, all that has been achieved is denouncement and condemnation of Zionist aggression – and by some, also denouncing and condemning the Resistance!

Meanwhile, the Zionists’ position can be summed up in two points: (1) The Zionist entity understands that returning to the situation which preceded Al-Aqsa Flood effectively means returning to a situation in which the Palestinian Resistance can continue to evolve and further its integration into the Axis. This would essentially mean slow death and endless paranoia for the occupation. (2) Thus far, the Zionist entity has failed to achieve any of its war objectives. Its military ranks are overwhelmed, hundreds of thousands of settlers have fled, those who have not are outraged, and their politicians are divided on the immediate priority.

What the Zionist entity views as its only rational option is therefore escalation to reclaim the balance of power. It has failed in the contained battle against the Palestinian Resistance and the supportive fronts. Expanding into a regional war with American and overall Western intervention could redistribute the stakes. This is the intent behind irrational actions such as the assassination of Hajj Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. They hoped for a reactionary escalation from the Islamic Republic of Iran – i.e., that it would deviate from its regular posture. Needless to say, what that means is that said posture has been effective.

Quite different is the assassination of Sayyed Muhsin Shukr in Beirut, which was a strategic action. Unlike Hajj Ismail Haniyeh, he served an active and immediate function on the battlefield, he was not a public figure or openly available target, and the intent was to create a void in the Islamic Resistance’s modus operandi – as was the assassination of Hajj Imad. Contrary to the assassination of Hajj Ismail Haniyeh, Sayyed Muhsin’s assassination was not categorically a breach of the rules of engagement. Nevertheless, the void the Zionist entity aimed to create was filled by the Islamic Resistance and there has been no manifest or even hardly recognizable disruption in their military action.

In the final week of August, Hezbollah delivered a powerful primary response to the assassination of Sayyed Muhsin. Sayyed Nasrallah commented on the response in an afternoon speech, calling it “complete and untainted” despite being “the first grand operation in the absence of a leader of Sayyed Muhsin’s caliber.”^[3]

It has since been reported that Gallant has made mention of seeking a settlement with Hezbollah to the displeasure of Ben-Gvir who complains that “Hezbollah is crossing every line there is and our Defense Minister is talking about reaching a settlement.”^[4] It is likely that the pace of the battle will proceed as it is – in this controlled manner – as we await the negotiations. But what is certain is that – unlike the Zionist entity – Hezbollah has proven it is capable of doing both: being a rational actor and using assertive force when needed.

Furthermore, the response of the Islamic Republic and other members of the Resistance Axis could take place at any given moment. The world will soon be reminded of the difference between rules of engagement and actual deterrence.

^[1] See the Sayyed’s speech on February 14, 2008 during the funeral processions for Hajj Imad Mughniyeh

^[2] See the Sayed’s speech on January 5, 2020 during the funeral processions for Hajj Qassem Soleimani and Hajj Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis

^[3] See the Sayed’s speech on August 25, 2024 after the Arba’een Day Operation

^[4] Clash in the cabinet, Israel National News, August 25, 2024