BEIRUT- Active resistance against American hegemony in West Asia has reached a critical point, posing a genuine threat to American regional interests. For some time, the U.S. underestimated the power balance that had shifted in favor of the Axis of Resistance.

October 7 marked a turning point, showcasing the first instance of the resistance taking the offensive. It proved that when mobilized, the resistance possesses both the will and capability to implement its plans despite its adversary’s technological superiority and intelligence capabilities.

The occupation entity, characterized by its inherently expansionist tendencies and reliance on swift military engagements, has proven unprepared for a prolonged conflict. Its soldiers lack training in ground warfare, and the settler society is accustomed to luxury rather than enduring the hardships of war.

Despite failing to achieve its primary strategic objectives and suffering losses, the Israeli regime remains committed to continuing the war. Netanyahu appears determined to toughen Israeli society, confronting the reality that they are engaged in an existential struggle for survival.

America is now redefining the functional role of the Israeli occupation entity after decades of involvement, allowing it to undertake tasks that the U.S. has struggled with for the past thirty years. The time has come for Israel to demonstrate its capability to achieve stated objectives. The Israeli military is now given a free hand to operate as it sees fit, setting the stage for a New Middle East by year’s end.

If successful, it stands to gain significant rewards, potentially expanding its territory to include all of Palestine, parts of Lebanon and beyond. The U.S. provides the necessary support but it does not seek direct intervention. However, failure to defeat the resistance could jeopardize the Israeli occupation entity’s current trajectory.

The shift to Lebanon aims to restore the deterrence lost on October 7 by undermining the more organized and armed resistance there. In reality, if any other military force had suffered initial blows like the Lebanese Islamic resistance, it would not likely have survived.

Given the shift in American strategy from advocating for a ceasefire to supporting an open war, some argue that the resistance must likewise review its own strategy. This includes coordinating efforts across the Axis of Resistance, such that the entity feels strong hits. Such sources contend that for the resistance to succeed, it must inflict more damage on the Israeli occupation than it receives in external American support.

The Israeli occupation entity seeks to manage each front separately and has shown its capacity to cause harm, due to the disparities in military capabilities. If it suspects the resistance front is weakening without adequate external support, it will be encouraged to escalate its actions. The killing of the secretary-general of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon and the perception of a weakened resistance, have further empowered the Israeli occupation entity’s aggression.

The entity has demonstrated its inability to withstand attacks from Iran, making a strike on Iran a potential opportunity for greater Iranian involvement.

The resistance has yet to reveal all its capabilities, which could include significant attacks on Tel Aviv, ground invasions, special operations, and expanded maritime operations.

The U.S. acts based on interests and is likely to push for an end to the war if the Israeli occupation entity suffers more than it can inflict harm on the resistance. Should the escalation risk a broader regional war—which the U.S. seeks to avoid—it may impose a ceasefire.

Ultimately, the same resistance that successfully defeated ISIS could similarly thwart the very existence of the Israeli occupation.