THREAD: We have to stop calling Israel’s current military-security-terrorist campaign against Lebanon an escalation and start calling it a war. Not total war without ceilings yet, but war, nonetheless. Israel’s “shock and awe” offensive pursues short term tactical gains to make up for its strategic losses, while Hizbullah is aiming for longer term strategic objectives despite some tactical losses it has endured over the past week. 1/
Israel's "fleeing forward" strategy comes with several unrealistic objectives, none of which are likely to be achieved:
-pushing Hizbullah to retreat from the border and end its support front with Gaza
-expel and displace people from South Lebanon to potentially use as a bargaining chip to return settlers to the North
-demoralise and break the resolve of Resistance fighters and the Resistance community
-significantly degrade Hizbullah’s military capabilities 2/
The farcical claim that Lebanese households are harbouring cruise missiles is such a transparently absurd, lazy and crudely constructed Israeli fabrication that it appears to serve no purpose beyond being a tactic of blackmail to pressure Hizbullah into capitulating to Israel’s demands. Thus, when Israel claimed today that it struck a record 1,600+ “Hizbullah sites, mostly weapons stored within homes,” yesterday, this was an admission that it had surgically killed and displaced over 1600 families. 3/
Since Israel’s mass terrorist offensive last Tuesday, Hizbullah’s strategy has been to escalate both horizontally, by widening the scope of attacks across Israel, and vertically, through intensified strikes and the introduction of new weapons, while holding back its advanced missiles for now. In doing so, it has extended the de facto security zone it established in northern Israel, reaching as far as Haifa, and increasing the number of displaced Israelis from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. 4/
Hizbullah has limited its strikes to key strategic military targets, such as military installations and weapons factories, avoiding civilian targets and infrastructure, even as Israel persists in committing war crimes against Lebanese civilians. While Israel’s approach has been one of displacement and massacre, Hizbullah’s strategy has focused on displacement and paralysis. Its Resistance forces aim to weaken the IDF’s resolve and erode the resilience of Israel's home front through a strategy of combined military and economic attrition.
5/
Whether or not Hizbullah will escalate further by targeting civilian objects in Israel and risk unleashing Israel’s firepower against Beirut remains to be seen. This decision will likely depend on Hizbullah’s perception of a strategic need to retaliate rather than a desire for vengeance. 6/
Hizbullah's ability to rebound from the pager attacks and the assassination of its senior commanders is a testament to its operational capability and its resilience in absorbing shocks to its command-and-control structure. Should Israel attempt a ground invasion of South Lebanon to create a buffer zone, Hizbullah will welcome it, as Nasrallah stated in his recent speech. This is where Hizbullah’s true strength lies: in close combat and preventing occupations. IDF troops would become sitting ducks for the Resistance’s advanced hybrid warfare tactics. 7/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: What would happen if Iran collapses as a state?
Unlike previous regime change wars that targeted individual states, what's happening now aims to eliminate the ideological and material infrastructure of resistance across the entire region. As a project rooted in a longstanding cause or idea, it can't be fully crushed; the underlying political and social forces will likely persist. As such, in the event of the Islamic Republic’s collapse, resistance wouldn't end but would transform, from a state-led alliance into a looser, post-axis formation. 1/
The project would be driven underground, shifting to asymmetric tactics and clandestine operations and would no longer be centralized or state-led, yet still coherent and strategically disruptive, operating through more fragmented methods. This wouldn't be the usual blowback that accompanies imperial misadvertures, but a transnational reconfiguration of power and warfare, with diffuse networks capable of targetting US and Israeli interests across multiple theatres over an extended period. It will be take the form of a hybrid war of attrition with no state accountability and no prospect of dialogue 2/
The inevitability of this scenario lies in Iran's foundational logic of resistance and non-sumbission. What is at stake is not just sovereignty, but the ideological core of a decades-long project. As Khamenei declared today, “We will never surrender in response to the attacks of anyone. This is the logic of the Iranian nation.” That logic, drawn from a Shi'a tradition that holds it is better to die resisting than live in humiliation, makes submission not just unlikely but existentially self-defeating. 3/
THREAD: The death of Khamenei, by itself, is not enough to bring down the Iranian state. Netanyahu has claimed it would end the war, a view echoed by some who fear that his death would trigger the unraveling of the system. But this is based on a false frame of reference that equates Iran with Iraq, Syria or Libya, systems so thoroughly built around a single figure that their destruction unraveled the state itself. 1/
But Iran’s continuity as a state hinges not on the survival of any one individual, but on military and security dynamics—specifically, how it conducts itself in the current war, its ability to absorb repeated shocks and maintain continuity through escalating conflict which could potentially expand into direct confrontation with the US. 2/
While it does concentrate significant power in the office of the Supreme Leader, it also embeds authority across a complex web of institutions and has a thriving civil society. The Islamic Republic is authoritarian, but its representative institutions are real and often fiercely contested; they are not decorative. 3/
THREAD: What I’m about to say might sound abstract, or even romantic, but it’s strategic analysis; a kind of realism that power refuses to acknowledge—to its own detriment.
Israel has made it patently clear that it does not reward surrender or concessions. Netanyahu’s declared intent to ethnically cleanse and annex Gaza—even in the event of Hamas’s surrender—makes this undeniable. The logic is not peace through submission, but erasure. 1/
We see the same logic in Syria where Israel has demilitarised the Syrian state and continues to occupy large swathes of its territory, despite the new regime’s efforts at appeasement and capitulation. Concessions don’t temper Israeli ambitions—they facilitate them. Submission becomes a stage in subjugation 2/
Israel, with the US' full backing, believes a new phase of unapologetic, methodical brutality will force peoples and states into submission. Genocide is no longer denied or disguised; it is practiced as statecraft, openly and without shame. This isn’t just dehumanizing; it denies Palestinians and Arabs not only dignity but the will to live and resist, as if the desire not to die is irrational when it comes from them. 3/
THREAD: Today, Israel assassinated Muhammad Afif, Hizbullah’s media head, killing him along with other civilians in a Christian residential neighbourhood of Beirut. Beyond its clear violations of international humanitarian law, the timing of this assassination exposes Israel’s strategic failures and reflects a campaign fuelled by desperation and a desire for retribution. 1/
The fact that Israel waited this long to target Afif, a figure who moved openly and publicly, exposes the ineffectiveness of its earlier strikes. After targeting monumental figures like Nasrallah—who was not only the head of Hizbullah but also the leader of the entire Resistance Axis—and the entirety of Hizbullah’s senior military leadership, Israel’s failure to meaningfully weaken the organization only makes its desperation more apparent. Resorting to lower-ranking civilian officials like Afif underscores the brazen futility of its tactics. 2/
Earlier this week, Israel launched its expanded ground offensive, marking "Phase 2," intended to push toward Hizbullah's so-called "second line" of defense. This offensive now involves the 36th Division, Israel's largest armored formation. Yet, despite this escalation, Israel has failed to secure territorial gains beyond a few km into Lebanon, exposing the futility of its efforts and the exhaustion of its target bank. 3/
THREAD: While A Trump victory will likely change little in U.S. policy toward Gaza and Lebanon, at least in the short term, it will signal a shift in approach—from a neocon liberal administration that uses deceit and diplomatic cover to distance itself from its support for Israel’s campaigns against Hizbullah and Hamas, to a far-right administration which will behave in a more unapologetically militaristic way. In other words, such a shift would sharpen the battle lines, replacing diplomatic pretense with more direct confrontation. 1/
While Nasrallah previously labeled Trump “among the worst, if not the worst” U.S. president following his 2020 defeat over the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, it was ultimately Biden who actively assisted Israel in targeting Nasrallah. With this and Harris’ genocidal record in mind, Hizbullah’s new Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, reiterated today that the outcome of the U.S. elections “holds no value” for the movement, emphasizing that Hizbullah relies on its battlefield strength rather than on U.S. political outcomes or ceasefire negotiations. 2/
This particularly the case considering Hizbullah's and Hamas' experience with the Biden-Harris administration, which engaged in over a year of calculated deception, using Gaza ceasefire talks as a front for Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign. They also constructed a temporary pier, presented as a humanitarian aid project for Palestinians, but later used by Israel in a hostage rescue operation that resulted in the massacre of 270 Palestinian civilians. 3/
THREAD: Israel's campaign of extensive destruction across southern Lebanon - flattening over 37 towns and obliterating 40,000 homes - may appear decisive through the lens of linear, tactical thinking. Similarly, the targeting of Hizbullah's political and military leadership could be seen as markers of victory. Yet many in media and policy circles mistakenly assume this level of destruction and loss signifies Hizbullah's weakening, the Resistance Axis's disarray, and the imminent defeat of both. This misconception arises from two key issues: 1/
First, there is a fundamental disagreement over the appropriate metrics for assessing power, victory and defeat. Israel’s linear, tactical and destructive approach to progress focuses on quantifiable gains, while Hizbullah and the Resistance Axis follow a non-linear approach to progress, grounded in a cyclical, long-term strategy that prioritizes resilience and sustained impact. Secondly, even judged by the linear standards favoured by Hizbullah's critics, the evidence suggests it is Israel that is failing to achieve its objectives and facing major setbacks, not the other way around. 2/
While the massive losses Hizbullah incurred—from the pager strikes to the elimination of its entire military command and top political leadership—may seem devastating to outside observers, Hizbullah appears to have absorbed them, as indicated by its sustained military effectiveness. This resilience aligns with its cyclical approach to conflict, encapsulated in Nasrallah’s assertion in his last speech on September 19, ‘One day for us from our enemy, and one day for our enemy from us.’ Hizbullah views conflict as a long-term process of wearing down its adversary through attrition, where success is measured through sustainability and resilience. Progress is seen as cumulative—a strategy it calls ‘accumulating points’—with time itself wielded as a strategic weapon. 3/