THREAD: Some preliminary thoughts on this new phase in the war focusing on key developments: 1) Israel’s act of state terrorism which killed Seyyid Hasan Nasrallah and its impact on Hizbullah, 2) The impact of Israel’s elimination of Hizbullah’s military command, 3) The current transition phase and Hizbullah’s strategic recalibration 1/
It’s evident that Israel, with the full backing and partnership of the US, aimed to dismantle Hizbullah in one decisive strike. This effort began with the assassination of Fuad Shukr in late July, followed by the pager attacks, but it was Nasrallah’s killing that served as the key trigger intended to spark Hizbullah’s expected implosion. While Israel's push for a regional war seems evident, it's still uncertain whether the US is fully prepared to commit to such a course 2/
It is difficult to quantify the magnitude of Nasrallah's loss for Hizbullah and the Axis as a whole. However, this does not mean Hizbullah is anywhere near the verge of collapse. Israel and the US misunderstand the nature of his leadership—people didn’t support the cause because of him; they supported him because he personified their cause of justice and liberation, and while he was a revered figure, the cause he embodied will outlive him. Nasrallah will live on not just as a model of resistance or political consciousness, but as a rationality—a kind of 'Nasrallah raison' 3/
To think the group would crumble without Nasrallah is a fundamental misreading, and a racist assumption that reduces Hizbullah—a complex and deeply-rooted movement—to a single individual, reinforcing a stereotype that such groups in the Middle East rely on charismatic "strongmen" rather than institutional strength, resilience, or popular grass-roots support. It reflects a broader Orientalist view that discounts the ability of non-Western organizations to function as sophisticated political or military entities, capable of enduring beyond the loss of one leader. 4/
Similarly, while Israel’s elimination of Hizbullah’s entire military command was a devastating blow that would have crippled most states, Hizbullah's ability to continue launching sustained strikes against Israel highlights its operational continuity and the resilience of its command-and-control structure. The reason Hizbullah has been able to withstand such significant losses is its exceptionally robust continuity of command, enabling a seamless transition of leadership even in times of severe crisis 5/
It's important to recall that Hizbullah was born out of war and invasion, shaping it into an organization with built-in resilience. It’s designed to continually regenerate its leadership, producing new generations of military commanders. This resilience was most evident in 2008 when Hizbullah lost its senior military commander, Hajj Imad Mughnieh, who was not just a foundational figure but the pioneer of the Resistance’s “New School of [hybrid] Warfare”. Far from being weakened by his assassination, and the killing of his successor, Mustafa Badereddine in 2013, Hizbullah’s military capabilities have since grown exponentially, with its tactics being adopted by allies across the Resistance Axis. 6/
Since Mughnieh’s assassination, Hizbullah has implemented a sophisticated system of knowledge distribution at the operational level. This distributed expertise ensures that the loss of any single leader, even one in a high-ranking position, does not create a critical gap in the group’s operational capabilities, allowing for rapid reorganization and continuity of operations. Hizbullah has made contingencies for multiple lines of commanders, so if the first is killed and replaced, the second can immediately step in, and if he too is killed, a third will take over, and so on. Several men are delegated with overlapping roles and tasks, ensuring that any void left by a fallen leader is quickly filled, allowing for rapid reorganization and seamless continuity of operations. 7/
None of this suggests that Hizbullah hasn't been severely bruised and momentarily weakened—more so than at any point in its history. This is undeniably a turning point. The organization is navigating a critical transition phase, absorbing consecutive shocks while attempting to recuperate, reconfigure, and reorganize. It is likely revising both its grand strategy and military approach, shifting from its previous support front with Gaza to developing a new defense strategy that will likely focus on repelling Israel’s seemingly imminent ground invasion and forcing it to end its aerial aggression. At the same time, Hizbullah is likely drawing up contingency plans for a broader "Great War" strategy—one that would be offensively driven, should Israel and the U.S. seek to engulf the entire region in war. 8/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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/
THREAD: Israel’s sweeping evacuation orders and strikes across Baalbek today are yet more evidence of its systematic targeting of Lebanon’s Shia community, reinforcing concerns of an intentional ethnic cleansing campaign. This is not confined to Baalbek; it’s part of a broader strategy that combines direct ethnic cleansing with ethnic cleansing by proxy, as Israel reportedly employs right-wing Christian groups and militias to enforce Shia expulsion—and repeated secondary displacement—on its behalf. 1/
Israel’s actions go far beyond issuing evacuation orders or targeting overwhelmingly Shia areas in Lebanon, like the South and Beirut’s Dahyeh. Entire historic cities like Baalbek and Tyre have faced both evacuation orders and direct strikes, while entire villages along the border have been leveled through controlled demolitions to ensure they remain uninhabitable, preventing any chance of return—a core element of ethnic cleansing. Residential buildings housing displaced Shia communities across various regions of Lebanon are also under direct attack, underscoring the expansive and deliberate nature of this campaign. 2/
The scale and specificity of these actions point to intentions that surpass both military objectives and targeted displacement, indicating a calculated effort to alter Lebanon’s demographic landscape permanently. For Lebanon’s Shia community, this war has become existential—they are the direct targets of Israel’s campaign, facing Netanyahu's declared vision of a "New Middle East" in which they have no place. 3/
THREAD: Israel has committed a significant number of war crimes in Lebanon over the past 72 hours, facilitated by U.S. political cover. This was demonstrated through Amos Hochstein’s visit to Beirut yesterday and Antony Blinken’s trip to Israel today, once again showing how the U.S. wields diplomacy as a weapon of mass destruction. 1/
Hochstein’s proposal has been roundly condemned as a "surrender deal," offering Lebanon de facto Israeli occupation, by tightening the noose on Hizbullah and effectively placing the country under indirect Israeli control, in exchange for an ultimately unsustainable cease-fire. 2/
As revealed by al-Akhbar newspaper, Hochstein's plan would extend US and Israeli control over Lebanon by making significant revisions to UN Resolution 1701. The plan would broaden the authority of “international” forces — meaning allies of Israel—beyond the Litani River, granting them the power to inspect and patrol without Lebanese consent. It calls for more troops, increased foreign surveillance of Lebanon’s borders, ports, and airports, and allows these forces to enter private property with the Lebanese army. 3/
THREAD: Tomorrow, October 17, will mark one month since Israel launched its war on Lebanon, that was set off with the mass casualty terrorist attack on over 4000 pager users, and escalating to the carpet bombing of southern Lebanon, culminating in the assassination of Hezbollah's entire military leadership and Seyyid Hasan Nasrallah. Instead of causing the anticipated collapse of the movement, these very harsh blows which occurred in quick succession, only seem to have invigorated it, and demonstrated its anti-fragility. What was intended to weaken Hizbullah has spectacularly backfired, highlighting how Israel fundamentally misread the group and, even after 42 years of close surveillance, still clearly does not understand its enemy. 1/
Had any other state in the region, including Israel, been confronted with a similar scenario, it would have likely spiralled into chaos, civil war, and succumbed to invasion. Far from collapsing like many states would, Hizbullah’s asymmetric advantage enabled it not only to reconstitute itself organisationally and maintain its command, control, and operational continuity but also to inflict substantial losses on the Israeli military. 2/
These tactical victories include, among others, a strike on the elite Golani Brigade in Binyamina on Sunday, which killed 4 and injured 67, as well as today’s close combat clashes in the Ramia–Aita Al-Shaab–Qawzah triangle, where Hizbullah's ambush resulted in over 49 injuries so far. This is over and above dozens of similar incidents over the past few weeks which have resulted in dozens of Israeli casualties. All of this occurred while Hizbullah was still reeling from the impact of these monumental losses, and the displacement of most of its support base. 3/