The euphoria of Israeli tactical achievements draws miscalculations

Before October 7, there were studies and discussions about the reality in Israel in terms of the nature of the political system and the conflict that is taking place for personal and ideological reasons (“Netanyahu, Deri, and the identity of the state”), and the readiness of the Israeli army in terms of its ability to confront multiple arenas at the same time, and its ability to do so in terms of equipment and numbers, especially the ground forces in it, due to plans to reduce the size of the regular army and transform it into the concept of a “small and smart army.”

Unfortunately, there were many analysts in the “Axis of Resistance” who underestimated the capabilities of the Israeli army. Rather, they saw that the internal conflict that was taking place over the identity of the state in Israel and the attempt to control the judicial system through the enactment of laws that were primarily aimed at protecting “Netanyahu” and “Aryeh Deri” with him, represented a major obstacle to the state’s ability to wage major wars. Moreover, these analysts spoke as if the Israeli army was not ready and could not wage comprehensive wars on several fronts.

At the same time, there were a few specialists in Israeli affairs who believed that the nature of the conflict in the Israeli political system does not necessarily reflect itself on the army, despite all the Israeli media hype about refusing to serve or threatening not to serve in the army if the far-right government continues its judicial reforms, and that security issues in Israel are above all else, and no one will hesitate to defend any threat to the state. Rather, the threat will lead to the unity of the political system and to everyone’s identification under one security goal, which is to protect the security of the settler and the settlement.

These few analysts saw Israel through Israeli and American eyes, not through eyes and estimates stemming from the development of the capabilities of the “Axis of Resistance” in terms of numbers and numbers. I remember in one of the discussions that took place via Zoom in a Russian academic circle that one of those familiar with the field reality from the Lebanese front spoke as if the Israelis were unable to confront Gaza, so how would they confront Lebanon (may God have mercy on him). At that time, I did not know who he was, and later after his martyrdom and seeing his picture, I knew who he was. However, that day, I asked for a response, and I said with all due respect that these were unrealistic estimates, and that the direction in Israel was a destructive war, and that the narrative of the declared existential war and the second war of independence was not absurd, but rather it was a confirmation that the founding Israel had made a decision for a comprehensive war on all fronts, and that the Lebanese front was coming after Gaza, if not during it, and that the Americans had also made a decision not only to stand by Israel, nor to provide it with weapons only, but to enable it to win, and that there was no alternative for Israel after October 7, except for a clear victory that was beyond doubt and that would lead to the dismantling of the “Axis of Resistance” that had become It is a concern for the Americans and the region as a whole.

After October 7, the analysts of the “Axis of Resistance” were divided, as the Palestinians among them began to see the necessity of a comprehensive war on all fronts and not just going towards support fronts. Those among them who doubted the capabilities of the Israeli army, especially its ground forces, backed down from that, while those who believed that Israel was unable to open another front, especially the northern front, remained entrenched in their position, insisting that Israel would not go to a comprehensive war with the Lebanese resistance. It seems that there is a great deficiency in understanding the nature of the settler state called Israel, and a deficiency in the American view of this settlement, to the point that some of them believed to a great extent that there were American interests in the region that prevented it from giving the green light to the occupying entity to carry out adventures and wars in the region, believing that this would harm the interests of the United States of America. They forgot or did not understand that the supreme interest that is above everything for America is “Israel” and after that come the other interests. There are no other interests at all without the strong and victorious settler state “Israel”, because its function is primarily to preserve those interests and no one else in the region is capable of that, of course except Other connections as a globalized Zionist concept.

After October 7th and until now, unfortunately, many analysts, especially those specializing in Israeli affairs, are still in a state of confusion due to the huge amount of information provided by the Israeli media, to the point that they believe that some articles, some news, or even some statements are what shape Israeli policy, whether in terms of what the far-right government wants, headed by Netanyahu, or the new strategic security concepts of the settlement called “Israel.”

Therefore, there is a need to clarify some matters that have become the ABC of politics in Israel, especially after the October 7 earthquake and its repercussions that are still present and rolling rapidly, so that through them the true strategic directions of the settler state "Israel" can be understood, in addition to the tactical issues related to the concept of survival of the right-wing coalition headed by "Netanyahu". Here we point out that the new elements are what determine the new reality on all the close and immediate fronts "Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, the West Bank", and also the surrounding fronts "Yemen, Iraq and Iran", and these elements are represented by the following:

First - Adopting the concept of the buffer zone... There is no return for the settlers of the north and south without it, and no security can be maintained and October 7 prevented without it, and the incursion into "Syria" is part of that, and the buffer zone in "Gaza" has become a fait accompli, while in "Lebanon" work is being done on it at a great speed through the comprehensive destruction of all the villages adjacent to the border, and the continuation of that even in light of the ceasefire agreement, and through talk about not withdrawing from all Lebanese lands according to the agreement, but "Lebanon" may be dealt with in a security manner without actual presence, but rather by setting new conditions that make direct presence a reality.

Secondly - the policy of "prevention" and "frustration" as an alternative to the policy of "warning" and "defense". This policy is clearly imposed through daily air raids and continuous incursions into the southern Lebanese front, the "freedom of movement policy" according to the US-Israeli bilateral understandings paper, and what this means in dealing with all fronts in the same way "Syria", including also the surrounding fronts "Yemen, Iran and Iraq", and according to the concept of the security need to prevent the development of capabilities on the one hand, and frustrate intentions according to the estimates of the security establishment on the other hand. As for the "Gaza" front, its story is much bigger than that, as they see it as an arena like the "West Bank".

Thirdly - There is no Palestinian state next to the settler state "Israel", and no security other than the Israeli security and army between the sea and the river, and the presence of local security formations in the West Bank and Gaza is permitted on the condition that they are under Israeli supervision and with direct American assistance and cooperation with specific regional countries.

Fourthly - The settlement called "Israel", with unlimited American support, has a strategic security space that includes the West Asia region in particular and North Africa as a future estimate, and this means creating a geopolitical security change first, and a geographic change "dividing the divided and fragmenting the fragmented" second when needed, that is, imposing political data in those countries in a way that leads to a new vision for any existing political system.

According to the above elements, it is possible to read the scene of talking about a prisoner exchange deal, stopping the war, and a comprehensive withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and to see the future scene of Lebanon and Syria from the point of view of the settler state "Israel" of course, and to see the upcoming scene in Yemen, Iran, and possibly Iraq as well. Therefore, the scene of 2025 is a scene of the continuation of the war, meaning that it will be a "year of war" as before, but its pace and nature are determined by the facts on the ground. Whoever wants to understand the reality of what is happening must follow the movements and plans of the Minister of Strategic Affairs, Minister "Ron Dermer", because he and "Netanyahu" draw up future plans in a way that serves the security and political strategy of the settlement called "Israel" on the one hand, and maintaining the cohesion of the ruling coalition on the other hand.

Bottom line

There is no deal without the visions of the settler state "Israel" led by Netanyahu being realized, especially regarding "Gaza", and everything is coordinated with the Americans and specifically with the Trump administration, and the goal is to thwart the deal and hold "Hamas" responsible for that before President Trump in order to achieve that vision. As we said in November, the issue of prisoners and detainees is not valuable to "Netanyahu" and his plans, and the difference between him and the military and security establishment is that they want the prisoners through a deal even if it leads to stopping the war and withdrawing from the Gaza Strip "a temporary postponement of implementing the vision", while "Netanyahu" sees that the settler state "Israel" is achieving great accomplishments, but he sends his close minister "Dremer" to reach an understanding with the Trump administration about everything, especially about American support for what the settler state "Israel" wants as a security and strategic need, restoring to it not the concept of "deterrence" but rather the concept of "an army that can reach any place in the entire region of West Asia and North Africa (the Middle East)", i.e. returning to the concept of "an invincible army".

As for the Lebanese front, the issue of giving the army a free hand and ease of movement has become a daily security reality in southern Lebanon, and will continue as a permanent policy unless something happens to restore the balance of deterrence, and this does not seem to be on the horizon in the near future, especially since the official “Syrian” scene supports the Israeli orientations towards the security understanding of the “Syrian and Lebanese” fronts, but only the emergence of something called “Syrian resistance” to the occupation will mess up the cards and force the settler state “Israel” to search for other solutions based on returning to the 2006 understandings.

As for the surrounding fronts, it seems that 2025 is the year in which they will be directly targeted with direct American support and participation, especially with regard to Iran, because the implementation of strategic security plans cannot be done without a major and decisive blow to the head, and that is why we said that 2025 is a “year of war,” because any blow to the head of the axis of resistance will necessarily lead, at a minimum, to an exchange of blows between the two parties, if it does not lead to a comprehensive war. As for “Yemen,” the policy of Israeli-American-British air strikes will continue, with the civil war being activated again if possible.

The settler state "Israel" has achieved great tactical achievements due to the wrong assessments of the leadership of the countries and fronts of the "Axis of Resistance", and its short-sighted view of the direction of this entity after October 7th. However, with the geopolitical developments in the region, and the emergence of a new regime in "Damascus", I believe that all those who are tired of the destruction and genocide that the settler state "Israel" has committed and is committing must look for a new strategy that is not based on ordinary or strategic "patience", and the first steps in this regard are the birth of a "Syrian resistance".

The options are imposed by the settler state "Israel", so there is no luxury of time and they must be dealt with, either by the concept of waiting for the opportunity which will not come at least in a decade, or by confronting it and trying to impose facts on the ground that may allow at least a return to previous understandings "and this is not possible" because confronting the options of the settler state "Israel" will necessarily impose other options that will take the region to a new reality in which the "Syrian" scene will have a decisive impact if a new resistance front appears against the Israeli occupation of Syrian land.

The tactical achievements made by the settler state "Israel" came about thanks to wrong estimates, reliance on American promises, and fear that the brutality that appeared in the Gaza Strip - "genocide, cleansing, and destruction" - would spread to the rest of the fronts, and this is what happened on the northern front.