London – New tactics and hidden strengths suggest that Lebanon’s resistance has changed, but its exact nature is unknown.
The US, through Saudi Arabia’s influence, assumed resistance was weakening, sought to change the political balance of Lebanon by establishing favorable leaders and calling for the elimination of resistance and disarmament. However, such a move puts betrayal at risk by destabilizing the region and damaging Western interests.
The US-led West has four major axes of threats to resistance. The first is an Israeli professional organization, which could once again be directly involved. The second is the movement of extremist groups near the Lebanon-Syrian border, which can also be used. The third is the risk of Lebanese sectarian conflicts pushed by supporters of the Syrian regime, including dormant Syrian terrorist cells. The fourth is the possibility of a clash with the Lebanese army, which could lead to a civil war involving other local groups. The goal in this situation is to present the resistance party as weak and unable to face all these threats.
But the Resistance is now cautious and sets a red line. After the ceasefire agreement, they hope for time to restructure and create the political situation for recovery.
Resistance was thought to allow certain bargains to be secured without this process being ruled out. It relies on strong support from people and despite efforts to stop it, it thought it could follow its own path. The resistance support base is strong and active. It is difficult to stop playing a major role in the country as it is involved in many areas such as society, health, education, military, security and more.
The enemy of resistance is interested in testing new forms to see how much it benefits from experience and how it may evolve. They might test it – perhaps war or otherwise. If this issue is unimportant, Israeli professional organizations will not argue it through the American administration. We now view the resistance arm as a major problem, and we are linking Lebanon’s future to it.
One option to test resistance is to push Lebanon into the civil war and weaken it. This will mislead resistance from the main target and reduce its popularity in the Islamic world, primarily as a force facing Israel’s enemies. Internal conflicts aim to undermine their credibility. This is because internal conflict creates deceptions and confusion about its true goals through media wars, and loses direction.
If the official Shiite forces represented by the Council of Councils recognize that losing resistance paper means losing everything related to resistance structures and alliances, it will be a major defeat. New resistance groups may rise during transitional periods, but the enemy may stand up to them and use everything to prevent growth using everything on the edge. The Parliamentary Speaker must understand that all the current benefits directed at him will become a curse if resistance is defeated. If resistance loses all the power, it is easy to dismantle it, and it is simple to pursue not only the moving element, but also the last non-moving element.
In these complex political times, there are many cards that can be played in all directions, so political roles must be aware of all these dangers and define intersectional or unacceptable limits. If you approach these red lines using the option to maintain a basic selection of resistance, you should study the appropriate responses for each case.
You should be concerned about the power of your enemy and not ignore possible responses. Some of it can destroy the environment. This is to maintain the most important goal, so maintain the contract, set up a compass, and keep resistance alive for future generations.
This must be a daily way of thinking of resistance to avoid the deception seen in the early stages, including a 60-day bounty period, presidential election, a prime minister’s choice, a statement from the minister, and an agreement to hand over weapons south of the Ritani River. The belief that the enemy may act in good faith during a ceasefire is a huge mistake. Even if the terms of peace are agreed, the enemy will only respect them if the balance of power is not favorable. When the balance changes, those promises are destroyed.
The Resistance took into account the issue of civil peace in dealing with the enemy in order to avoid ripping the peace of the citizens. However, if some internal groups work with the enemy and try to achieve their goals through it, citizen peace is no longer important. Because these groups became traitors and joined the enemy.
The new rules then apply. Fight anyone inside that will start a conflict. At that point, the enemy has lost its advantages and the peace of the citizens is already broken, so resistance can no longer bear it. The enemy then attacks violently to shift balance. This abolishes the notion of maintaining internal traitors. Because all the options that gave the enemy an advantage will disappear.