THREAD: While the likelihood of an Israeli offensive against Lebanon in the coming weeks remains uncertain, what's clearer is that Israel's threats of attack, coupled with US pledges of support, are part of a coordinated media strategy to pressure and intimidate Hizbullah 1/ The US and Israel hope that a planned scaling down to a less intense "phase 3" operation in Gaza will create a diplomatic "off-ramp" that encourages Hizbullah to stop it attacks. Media-channeled warnings aim to pressure Hizbullah towards embracing this diplomatic "solution" 2/

Hizbullah's latest escalation along Israel's northern border is a marked departure from prior flare-ups that have occurred since October 8. This stage transcends merely responding to Israeli attacks and restoring deterrence; it involves conveying new messages and strategies 1/ Hizbullah's deployment of a squadron of drones and the launching of heavy rockets, which set the Galilee on fire on Monday, must be seen in the context of Biden's cease-fire proposal last Friday. While the party didn't take the initiative seriously, seeing it as an electoral ploy, it's nonetheless trying to improve Hamas' negotiating position in the talks with Israel 2/

THREAD: It is as sinister as it is absurd for media outlets to continue to portray individuals who condemn Israel's incineration of Palestinians and beheading of babies as expressing a fringe or "alternative” viewpoint. Opposing this genocide is not some outlier opinion; it has become a mainstream view across Western countries, as it is increasingly regarded as a fundamental question of human decency that transcends political affiliation. 1/ Recent YouGov polls show that majorities in Italy, Belgium, Sweden, France and the UK favour sanctions and ending arms sales to Israel, with only 13% of Brits still supporting the continuation of arms sales. In the US, the proportion of those who oppose arms sales is 52% according to a March YouGov poll. 2/

THREAD: Israel hasn’t just lost this war, but has preemptively undermined its chances of victory in all future wars. Its abysmal track record over the past 7+ months in weakening, let alone dismantling, Hamas coupled with its failure to neutralise the threat posed by Hizbullah to its northern border, has laid bare its vulnerabilities to its adversaries. 1/ If the 2006 war shattered the myth of Israel's invincibility, this war has shattered the myth of its capability. The beating it has taken from both resistance groups these past two days alone demonstrates that it's not merely facing a "Sisyphean task" as its chief-of-staff, Halevi, put it, but flogging an already dead horse. 2/

Thread: It's hard to believe that Israel can afford to snub the US sponsored cease-fire proposal that Hamas has accepted. While this remains a very real possibility given Israel's increasingly irrational behaviour, another scenario is also possible 1/ It could well be that Netanyahu is scrambling to save face with a war-hungry Israeli public and burnish his genocidal credentials with his far-right partners, before he is forced into a humiliating cease-fire deal. Pounding Rafah and maximising civilian casualties while seizing key humanitarian crossings could well be a last ditch attempt to compensate for Israel's military failures 2/

THREAD: Whether Israel's micro-drone strike against Iran was launched from inside Iran or from neighbouring countries, this very underwhelming response (which was essentially a repeat of similar strikes Israel has conducted over the past few years) demonstrates the following: -that Iran's retaliatory strike succeeded in achieving short term, "immediate deterrence"
-that Israel's deterrence posture vis-a-vis its enemies has been considerably weakened
-that Israel's over-reliance on US military assistance has constrained its war-making 2/

THREAD: Iran and Hizbullah seem to have mastered the strategy of sub-threshold retaliation—a type of response that straddles the line between deterrence and escalation. 1/ This was demonstrated by Iran's recent strikes against Israel, as well as Hizbullah's strikes on Israel's Meron air intel base in January. Both of these strikes were responses to Israeli provocations in which it totally abandoned the previous rules of engagement 2/

THREAD: The region is entering uncharted territory where the previous strategic paradigm and rules of engagement no longer apply. From now on, any Israeli action will be met with a direct and collective response by the Axis. 1/ Regardless of what Israel does next, there is no going back to the status quo ante. This is no longer the Iran that just supports resistance movements with weapons and training. This is the Iran that directly engages in strikes against Israel. 2/

I don't think the US fully grasps how existential this war is for all the actors in the Resistance Axis. The Axis is aware that the war is existential for Israel but the converse isn't the case. The US' blindness to the existential stakes has dangerous policy implications 1/ These existential stakes are especially high for Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran, for whom a cease-fire would suffice to achieve a strategic victory.
The ability of Hizbullah and Hamas to survive a war and repel an Israeli invasion is a vindication of the "logic of resistance" 2/

THREAD: Everyday racism cannot explain the deeper, systemic reason behind the Western world's indifference to the slaughter of over 40,000 Palestinians, including at least 13,000 children, compared to its outcry over the deaths of 6 white aid workers 1/ That reason is that Palestinians have been dehumanised by Israel to such an extent that it has normalised the creation of a new extra-legal category of Palestinians as less-than civilians. After 6 months of genocidal war, this category has become ingrained in the western mind 2/

THREAD: The main reason the war appears to have no immediate end in sight is that Israel doesn't have a strategic vision that goes beyond the extermination of the Palestinian people, while the US lacks a realistic vision. 1/ As expressed by Israeli journalist Amos Harel, Netanyahu wants "perpetual war more than he wants total victory." This explains why the cease-fire talks keep hitting a brick wall, as well as Israel's adoption of a chaotic warfare strategy designed to regionalise the conflict 2/

Iran's imminent response to Israel will be driven primarily by the need to restore deterrence, as Zahedi's assassination is the most severe blow since Soleimani's killing in 2020 and the 4th attack on IRGC forces since December. But it will be driven by other factors too 1/ Iran's response will also be motivated by the need to ensure that Israel can't act with impunity. The fact that it brazenly violated the Geneva and Vienna Conventions on the same day without even raising an eyebrow in the US and the West is something Iran will seek to address 2/

Although the US' abstention on the UN cease-fire vote signals a rift between the US and Israel, it's essentially one over different perspectives about how Israel's interests can be best served. It's a clash over specific tactics and policies rather than overarching strategy 1/ The US State Department's statement that Israel's use of US weapons doesn't violate International Law and that it isn't blocking humanitarian aid suggests that there is no clash over Israel's genocidal strategy. The dispute over invading Rafah is therefore a tactical one 2/

Since Israel seems unable to achieve any semblance of victory, the next best alternative is to ensure that there is no status-quo ante for Hamas to go back to. This entails rendering Gaza ungovernable; if you can't overthrow a "regime", you can try dismantling what it governs 1/ Given that Israel has failed to significantly degrade Hamas militarily, or to ensure a "day after" scenario that doesn't include it, the US' new objective in Gaza seems to have shifted from a zero-sum game where Israel wins to a lose-lose situation where neither side wins 2/

Israel is set to invade Rafah, not in spite of, but precisely because of the fact that it's a densely packed refugee camp where 1.1 million people, including 600k children have nowhere else to flee. There are two main aims behind this: 1/ First, is to present the horrific war crimes that are about to ensue as a symbolic victory ahead of unpopular concessions Israel will be forced to make in the ongoing cease-fire talks. This has become Israel's modus operandi during cease-fire talks with Hizbullah and Hamas 2/

THREAD: The West's defunding of UNRWA doesn't just contribute to genocide, but tacitly justifies it. The readiness with which it cut off Gazans' lifeline was shaped by Israel's conflation of UNRWA with Hamas, which in turn erases the distinction between civilians and combatants The Israeli intel report which informed the West's decision to defund, not only alleges that 12 UNRWA staff were involved in Oct 7, but that 23% of all males were tied to Hamas and half of its employees had family links to it. UNRWA staff were hence criminalised and dehumanised

THREAD on how the Resistance Axis will view the ICJ ruling in terms of its position and strategy: On the one hand, it will be viewed as a moral victory for the Palestinian cause and its own position. On the other, it will be seen as vindicating its strategy of armed resistance. Hizbullah's officials and parliamentary bloc previously praised South Africa's case against Israel, while Hamas official Osama Hamdan said the group would adhere to any cease-fire injunction by the court if Israel adhered to it. Iran similarly commended South Africa today.

The Resistance Axis is made up of popular forces that are deeply entrenched in the states of which they are part, and which have a history of governance. The notion that they can be eradicated with counter-terrorism or attrition warfare and scorched earth tactics is absurd 1/ The biggest problem with the US-UK strikes on Ansarullah and the US’ strikes on the PMU, is that they adopt a counter-terrorism strategy against the de facto state in Yemen, in the first instance, and against an integral part of the Iraqi state, in the latter case 2/

Some argue that Israel cannot eliminate Hamas or Hizbullah because it is impossible to eradicate an ideology. However, I would argue that the challenge goes beyond this; both actors represent a form of rationality rather than merely an ideology. The distinction is important 1/ Ideologies can sometimes be subordinated to political interests but rationality can't be subordinated to anything else. It's the prism through which an object is determined to be a strategic interest. An example is the "logic of resistance" which both groups prioritise 2/

Many are assuming Hizbullah will respond to Israel's assassination of Sayyed Razi Mousavi, Iran's IRGC advisor in Syria. This analysis is flawed for several reasons and it is very unlikely Hizbullah will retaliate for the assassination. Here's why: First, Hizbullah is not Iran’s proxy but a junior partner and its staunchest ally in the Resistance Axis. While Hizbullah would likely come to Iran's defense in the event of an attack, the principle of collective defense has never extended to assassinations of Iranian officials

The US' call for creating "the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities" is a particularly egregious expression introduced by the UK and Germany last week. It effectively calls for indefinite bloodshed until Israel achieves its objective of wiping out Hamas 1/ As explained by the UK and German foreign secretaries, the call for an immediate cease-fire isn't "the way forward...Hamas must lay down its arms." A "sustainable cease-fire, leading to a sustainable peace" is therefore one where there is no armed resistance to occupation 2/