Islam Times - Pager Terror in the Balance of Strategic Gains and Losses

Islam Times - It’s unclear what “Israel’s” objectives were in exploding civilian communication devices in Lebanon, which killed dozens and wounded thousands of people. Did the “Israelis” think the massacre would have any effect on the strategic equations in the region or limit Hezbollah’s options in Lebanon?

There is no doubt that this treacherous crime, like all their other crimes that are not characterized by direct military confrontations, underscores “Israel’s” weakness.

It has earned the title of a “puppet army”, which the Palestinian resistance in Gaza toyed with and became famous in the “Israeli” media as a “duck” in the line of fire of the resistance in Lebanon.

There is no doubt the enemy compensates for these shortcomings with other shortcomings guaranteed to it by America, global collusion, and the absence of law. These shortcomings are defined by two main pillars – the Air Force and technology. The resistance factions have reduced existing gaps by developing their missiles and drones, as well as some of the air defense models that have been displayed so far.

Of course, some technological gaps remain due to “Israel’s” manufacturing superiority and its sponsors, which it employs in war crimes, massacres, and treacherous aggression.

Here we are not discussing the investigations and their conclusions, which will be revealed in full detail. Instead, we focus on the practical repercussions of this crime and evaluate them in line with calculations of strategic gain and loss.

In principle, Hezbollah holds “Israel” responsible for the crime and pledged to respond and exact just retribution, which is inevitable. Therefore, the enemy has burdened itself with something it could have avoided unless it is trying to expand the fighting, in which case it has also burdened itself with more serious risks.

Here we can use these points to evaluate strategic gains and losses:

First: Targeting civilians, which is a sign of the enemy’s weakness that the resistance picks up on, as it replaces its ground threats and expansion of the fighting with criminal operations like these, raising the morale of the fighters on the fronts.

Second: If the enemy's calculations were based on terrorizing the resistance environment, then the rush of the people and broad segments of the Lebanese people to help the wounded, donate blood, renew the pledge to the resistance, and demand revenge are an initial response to the crime and proof of the failure of the enemy's goals. On the contrary, its crime had the opposite effect, as it increased the heat of the battle and the enthusiasm of the resistance environment that expanded across the entire area of Lebanon.

Third: If the goal was to pressure the resistance in Lebanon to abandon its support for Gaza, then this is compound ignorance. On the one hand, it indicates that the enemy does not learn from experiences and does not yet know the credibility of the resistance, its iron will, and its refusal to submit to terrorism and humiliation. On the other hand, it engages the resistance in a direct battle and not just a support battle, thus changing the title of the confrontation and what that entails in terms of changing the range of fire, its strength, and its rules of engagement.

There is no doubt that the execution of the terrorist attack after a meeting with the American envoy Amos Hochstein is an indication of the unity of the battle between the Zionists and the Americans, especially since the cyber technologies used in the crime point to a combined effort of more than one party. Moreover, America’s leadership in the aggression and its apparent hypocrisy in commenting on the crime suggest that there is no need for evidence and investigations.

The bottom line is that the enemy should expect more steadfastness on the fronts, more cohesion in the internal front of the resistance’s supporters, and more fire and qualitative operations on the battlefield.

Hence, conclusions that can be derived from the treacherous operation suggest that this is nothing more than a punitive act for the resistance and its supporters for the choice of honor and support for the Palestinian resistance. Its impact does not go beyond pain, which is what Hezbollah leader His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged when he said we are sad and in pain, but we do not change our principles and choices.

If the enemy considers pain and sadness a gain, then congratulations to them. But the resistance knows that it has chosen the path of thorns, which is difficult and intractable. Its slogan is “Humiliation is far from us!”, and it proceeds with its strategic choices with steadfastness and undeterred by pain, injury, or martyrdom.