By Mohammad Hammoud
In the intricate realm of Middle Eastern politics, “Israel” has historically portrayed itself as a formidable power, relying on its military strength and perceived strategic advantages. However, in an article published by Foreign Affairs on November 13, 2024, Renad Mansour argues that “Israel’s” military strategy against Hamas and allied groups miscalculates the resilience of what he calls the "axis of resistance." This network includes groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Ansarullah in Yemen, and parts of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces [PMF]. By focusing on the resilience of this Iran-backed coalition, Mansour presents a compelling case for why “Israel's” military strategies might not yield the intended dismantling of these groups. The piece ultimately argues for a re-examination of “Israel’s” assumptions about this axis, emphasizing that these groups’ societal and regional roots are deeper and stronger than often recognized.
However, he suggests that “Israel’s” hopes of dissolving the axis are unrealistic, as this network has shown remarkable resilience, drawing strength from deep societal and state connections within its member countries.
This underestimation of the alliance’s strength could have profound implications for the region.
Historically, these groups have demonstrated resilience through their ability to adapt and recover from leadership losses and other setbacks.
Hezbollah, for instance, has built strong societal ties in Lebanon and retains considerable influence through social services and local governance.
Its power extends beyond military capacity; it has deeply entrenched itself in Lebanese society, creating a support network that is resilient to outside intervention.
An important observation made by Mansour is that “Israel’s” absolute military dominance—despite its technological advancements and strong alliances with Western nations—may only result in short-term successes.
Historically, the axis of resistance has shown an impressive capacity to adapt in the face of adversity, whether from leadership decimations or severe economic difficulties.
This adaptability stems from grassroots support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which are deeply integrated into local communities and regional governance structures.
The ability to withstand setbacks has been evidenced by the alliance’s response to challenges, such as the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s IRG, in 2020.
This event led to a more horizontally organized coalition, with emerging leaders refining the strategic outreach of the alliance.
The Strategic Depth of Resistance A key point in the article is the strategic depth of Iran and its allies.
While “Israel” has historically depended on its technological superiority and intelligence capabilities for security, Mansour argues that the adaptability and effective asymmetric warfare tactics of the resistance have reshaped conflict dynamics.
For example, Hezbollah’s advancements in missile technology and combat experience gained from the Syrian conflict have significantly altered regional power balances, challenging the narrative of “Israeli” invincibility.
Mansour also emphasizes the cohesive operational strategies of these allied groups.
Far from being mere proxies, they have evolved into autonomous entities capable of independent military strategy and execution.
Hezbollah, in particular, exemplifies this transformation; it has not only achieved military success but has also garnered substantial popular support through social initiatives and its steadfast resistance against foreign intervention.
This interplay between military prowess and grassroots backing forms a cornerstone of the resistance’s effectiveness, pressuring “Israel” to reassess its approach to conflict with this coalition.
Furthermore, the axis has exhibited remarkable resilience, adapting to structural changes over time.
Historically dominated by Iran's directives, the alliance has evolved to allow greater autonomy for its members, particularly for groups like Hezbollah.
Following Soleimani’s death, Hezbollah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, assumed an influential advisory role, empowering affiliates from Iraq and Yemen to execute operations aligned with local conditions without over-relying on Tehran.
This more agile structure has enabled the alliance to endure shocks and persist under duress.
Miscalculations and Their Consequences The dangers of underestimating this axis of resilience, as Mansour underscores, carry weighty implications.
“Israel’s” reliance on conventional military superiority poses risks of serious strategic miscalculations, particularly in its engagements with Iran and its allies.
Today’s conflict landscape extends beyond traditional warfare, incorporating cyber capabilities, drone technology, and guerrilla tactics, which diminishes the effectiveness of conventional military dominance.
Mansour highlights that resistance movements thrive on adversity; thus, external pressures from “Israel” and the US often galvanize these coalitions.
American sanctions and military support for “Israel” have only strengthened the resolve of Iranian-backed groups, framing them as defenders of sovereignty against oppressive forces.
This narrative resonates widely across the region, fostering solidarity among factions that might otherwise remain fragmented.
The article cites several instances where the axis of resistance has emerged stronger despite external pressures.
For example, Hezbollah regrouped after the assassination of its leader Sayyed Abbas al-Musawi in 1992, ultimately compelling ““Israel’s” military withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.
This victory enhanced Hezbollah’s reputation and support among Lebanese Shiites, further entrenching its position within Lebanese society.
Similarly, the Ansarullah in Yemen, initially a local force, have evolved into a formidable military faction challenging Saudi-led coalition.
With Iranian support in training, funding, and advanced weaponry, the Ansarullah have disrupted Red Sea shipping routes and undermined Saudi stability.
Mansour argues that ““Israel’s” current war strategy overlooks a crucial dynamic: the social embedding and regional resilience of these resistance groups.
By deepening local alliances, establishing shared resources, and building a horizontally integrated network, the axis of resistance has created a resilient infrastructure that resists quick annihilation.
Without addressing the political and social support that sustains these groups, “Israel’s” approach is likely to yield only tactical victories, pushing these entities into “survival mode” rather than dismantling them entirely.
Conclusion: Toward a Sustainable Path to Stability In conclusion, Mansour’s article underscores the necessity of understanding the strength of the axis of resilience led by Iran and its allies.
By analyzing their strategic depth, military capabilities, and the socio-political foundations of their alliances, we can appreciate the complexities defining the modern Middle Eastern landscape.
Underestimating this coalition poses significant risks to “Israel” and could lead to further regional destabilization.
An approach that recognizes the legitimacy and resilience of the axis may enhance “Israel’s” security calculations and promote a more stable Middle East.
Embracing dialogue over confrontation could ultimately serve the interests of all parties involved, fostering a future where diverse narratives coexist peacefully.
Mansour advocates for a political solution that acknowledges the axis’s enduring societal roots, beginning with an immediate ceasefire followed by regional negotiations involving all stakeholders.
Without such an approach, the Middle East risks descending into further chaos and violence.
Understanding and negotiating with the axis of resistance may offer a more sustainable path to regional stability than continued total war