-Analysis-
BEIRUT — Most leaders of the “Axis of Resistance” admit that the battle they face against Israel is not fought on even terms. Even Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah, used his speech Thursday to say the confrontation with Israel is unequal, in militarily, security and political terms.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Still, even with such admissions, these same leaders don’t take the necessary steps to reduce those disparities. Starting with the October 7 operation, in which Hamas has not achieved sufficient political gains to justify the enormous human and social costs that followed.
That has been followed by the “support and distraction” war Hezbollah launched in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese “party of God” still has not demonstrated what it has secured for the people of Gaza, nor has it informed us of the extent to which it has distracted the Israeli army from its genocidal mission against the Palestinians.
“The battle is unequal…and we are rushing into it”!
What kind of strategy is this? What are the objectives for those behind it? On top of that, we know any objection to this illogical approach will be met with accusations of treason and “weakening the nation’s resolve.”
There is no room for reason in this debate, and no distance between those who engage in it and the “traitor” label. In reality, Hezbollah, as a ruling power, has established an arsenal specifically aimed at targeting anyone with reservations about its role — not just its military role, but also its domestic political role in Lebanon.
Lebanon is not Gaza
For instance, anyone saying out loud that the decision of war in Lebanon is in the hands of a party, a faction, and an external state would face severe consequences, possibly leading to their exile from the country. This person would find no one to defend them after more supporters joined the “al-Aqsa Flood” and the distraction war, and after calls to postpone touchy subjects until after “victory” is achieved.
Amid such a scene, there is no space for rational questions about the futility of continuing the war given the “inequality” between its two sides. How can we turn this reasoning into action without being accused of “weakening the nation’s resolve”?
For the Lebanon war, Israeli public opinion is on his side.
But of course, the bigger problem right now is that Benjamin Netanyahu is testing the limits of this “inequality,” apparently set to launch into war in a way we have never seen before.
“The whole world is backing him,” many say, and this is true. Rather than stir the global conscience, the war crimes he committed this week prompted wonder at the success of the new military tactics. What consequences will this moral failure have for us? Should we continue this unequal battle? But doesn’t that border on suicide…?
Just how unequal?
Indeed, Netanyahu’s war in Lebanon is different than his war in Gaza.
In the latter, he is constrained by the Israeli hostages held by Hamas, an Israeli public pressing to stop the war, and the growing global belief that he is committing genocide, as well as rulings from the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court against him.
For the Lebanon war, however, Israeli public opinion is on his side, and he is shielded from international scrutiny by the fact that Hezbollah opened the front and refuses to close it.
So realizing the extent of the “inequality,” Netanyahu has escalated the conflict. Logic suggests that continuing the fighting is nothing more than meeting Netanyahu halfway toward total war, and it also suggests that stopping this man’s mission requires seeking ways to end the war.
Cup of poison
There is a precedent for this from before the Axis of Resistance took its current form: the “cup of poison” that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini announced he had swallowed when he agreed to stop the Iran-Iraq War in 1988.
Today, the circumstances are even more favorable for such a step, as ending the war in Lebanon might lead to new Lebanese conditions regarding border demarcation, without imposing peace with Israel separate from the Arabs and Palestinians.
Hezbollah only knows how to win. Iran has the ability to handle major losses.
Hezbollah only knows how to “win,” while Iran has repeatedly shown its ability to handle major losses (like the war with Iraq) and tactical defeats such as the assassination of the late Ismail Haniyeh on its soil. However, this deadlock has an internal dimension as well, which may be less impactful than its non-Lebanese dimension but still factors into Hezbollah’s calculations.
The party’s need for “victory” domestically is part of its relationship with its Lebanese counterparts, resulting in its dominance over various sectors of the state and its ports. On the other hand, none of the other Lebanese forces, especially Hezbollah’s rivals, have the awareness necessary to call the party to the table of reason. Undermining “victory” means civil defeat, which could lead to another cycle of violence, as we saw hints of in the social media storm that followed the recent pager and walkie-talkie attacks.
