THREAD: Israel's unprecedented and highly sophisticated security operation today in which almost 3000 people have been injured so far, is by all means a massive blow to Hizbullah. This is all more so the case given that Hizbullah has always credited its performance in the July War, in part, to its primitive telecom network which relied on pagers and a fiber optic "internal" line. By neutralising Israel's technological superiority with "simplicity", to borrow Nasrallah's terms, Hizbullah prevented Israel from disrupting its command and control system. 1/
Today’s attack effectively negates this advantage. The question is: why did Israel choose to prematurely play this card outside the context of all-out war, where a disruption of this magnitude could have changed the course of the war. Israel surely knows that Hizbullah will now review and amend its entire communication protocols, which suggests that Israel has other aims which could well fall short of full war. 2/
The operation appears to have been designed as a major spectacle potentially serving dual purposes: to demoralise Hizbullah’s cadres and instil uncertainty while acting as a coercive deterrent aimed at altering their force positioning along the border. 3/
Israel appears to have developed a unique military-security paradigm in its war on Lebanon: its daily assassination campaign via drone warfare blurs the line between prolonged security measures and traditional warfare. Today’s attack consolidates this novel paradigm which acts more as a substitute for all-out conventional war. At least for the time being. 4/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: Kamala Harris’ declaration yestday “I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel” was indicative of a very sinister agenda that Israel has also been consistently promoting. 1/
The campaign to frame Iran as the ultimate mastermind behind or, at the very least, a sponsor of October 7 and of Hamas more generally, goes beyond the need to vilify Iran and cement its position as a primary adversary of the US. More significantly, by portraying Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other resistance groups in the West Bank as Iran’s proxies, the US and Israel are trying to achieve 3 aims that relate to Palestine specifically: 2/
First, by reframing the conflict as a proxy war, the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, freedom and basic human rights is reduced to a mere geopolitical chess piece in a larger regional power struggle. Palestinians who are forced to eat grass, drink rainwater, and carry their children’s body parts in plastic bags, are consequently cast as little more than pawns who wittingly or unwittingly sacrifice their lives and children for Iran’s regional ambitions. 3/
THREAD: Western governments' unbridled backing of Israel's expansionist agenda in Gaza and the West Bank is not only profoundly unethical and unlawful—flagrantly defying their own legal counsel—but also remarkably self-defeating. Far from protecting Israel or ensuring its longevity, their unqualified support has instead ushered in a new, formidable resistance paradigm across the Middle East. 1/
Shielded by unwavering Western support, Israel's brazen re-invasion and destruction of the occupied West Bank, replicates the complete impunity it has enjoyed in Gaza. This Western-backed expansionism has confirmed to its enemies in the Resistance Axis—chiefly, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad—that Israel, poses an immediate existential threat, intent not merely on invading and occupying neighboring territories, but on colonizing their lands. 2/
Western support for Israel has had far-reaching consequences: It has not just undermined Western leaders' domestic legitimacy by virtue of their normalization of genocide, war crimes and colonialism. More critically, Western-backed Israeli aggression has fostered and fuelled the growth of the Resistance Axis in ways Israel alone could never have achieved, solidifying bonds between its members while enhancing their collective military capabilities and expanding their regional influence. 3/
THREAD: Yesterday's video released by Hizbullah showcasing its underground complex, the "Imad-4", signals its operational readiness to retaliate. This coincides with Israel's expected torpedoing of the cease-fire talks which were exclusively aimed at delaying or curbing Hizbullah and Iran's planned responses. 1/
Hizbullah's clandestine nature and its adherence to the doctrine of strategic surprise, makes its decision to reveal a portion of its sophisticated bunker network and some of its military capabilities especially significant. By offering this limited glimpse into one of several "Imad" compounds, Hizbullah appears to be sending a potent deterrent message to Israel to absorb its imminent retaliation without further escalation. 2/
Though Israel has long been aware of Hizbullah's complex tunnel system, the revelation of subterranean heavy rocket artillery and concealed multiple rocket launch systems capable of firing from hidden underground openings, represents a new development. This development also demonstrates a substantial expansion of what the IDF previously referred to as Hizbullah's "Nature Reserves" during the 2006 war. 3/
THREAD: It seems that the potential retaliation by Iran and Hizbullah against Israel may hinge on the outcome of tomorrow's ceasefire talks in Doha. This connection has been indicated by multiple sources: Iran's UN envoy mentioned it last week, three Iranian officials conveyed this to Reuters yesterday, and today, Nabih Berri, the Lebanese parliament speaker and close Hizbullah ally, referred to the upcoming talks as "the last shot". 1/
However, given that Israel is more likely to scupper the talks, especially considering new demands it has reportedly added, and its longstanding aversion to a cease-fire, it's more probable that Iran and Hizbullah are merely engaging in a perfunctory exercise, ready to take action once these negotiations inevitably conclude without yielding any meaningful results. 2/
Iran and Hizbullah appear to be allowing this last ditch diplomatic attempt to run its course despite their recognition that these talks have been weaponised against the Resistance Axis: first, to buy Israel more time at the Palestinians' expense, and second, to delay or limit the expected retaliation from Iran and Hizbullah. 3/
THREAD: Forecasting the nature of Iran and Hizbullah's potential retaliation is challenging. It's unclear whether they will opt for a high-impact joint operation or a staggered offensive with overarching strategic alignment, designed to produce a cumulative impact. 1/
Putting aside logistical and tactical considerations related to Israel’s reaction time, target selection, and so on, the type of response will also be dictated by their perception of whether or not the US is seen as willing to restrain Israel in the aftermath of the counter-strikes and its overall willingness to enter a broader war. 2/
If there is high confidence in the US’ aversion to a wider war, then Iran and Hizbullah’s responses will be informed by the need to restore immediate deterrence that aims at preventing repeated targeted assassinations in Beirut and Iran. This would not require a coordinated or joint response, but could be achieved by each actor independently albeit sequentially. 3/
THREAD: How might Hizbullah and the Resistance Axis respond to Israel's new targeted shock and awe campaign, or what Nasrallah has called the "new phase" of the war? 1/
2/ An analysis of the possible retaliation will be shaped in large part by what the Axis believes Israel's aims are, and the extent of US support for these aims. In other words, whether Israel is simply trying to intimidate and coerce its enemies into submission with these very provocative assassinations, or if its trying to bait Hizbullah and Iran into a wider regional war with the aim of forcing the US to step in militarily. 2/
Given that their previous deterrence strategies are no longer effective, both Iran and Hizbullah have to go beyond their responses to the attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria and the assassination of al-Arouri, respectively. This entails an abandonment of their signature "sub-threshold" response, and the adoption of a vertical escalation strategy that crosses Israel's red lines forcefully, compelling it to redraw those lines and absorb the counter-strike(s), without triggering an all-out war. 3/