Nasrallah's Speech

A Surprise for those who don't know

First posted on November 5th 2023, as a follow up to my predictions regarding the speech.

https://twitter.com/ZimermanErik/status/1721258219866075508

Commenting on Nasrallah's speech.

It seemed to get a pretty bad reception worldwide, at least from those who expected much more from him.

However most of that is either from his Sunni enemies, not least of which is Hamas along w/ its supporters who desperately want the northern front to explode and somehow save them from the battle they began (or to at least die trying), and from people who are ignorant of the actual situation in Israel and Lebanon, and thus what Nasrallah's calculations might truly involve.

I for one, not being in either of the above categories, correctly not only expected the likely overall direction of his speech but quite strikingly (if I may say so myself) nailed quite a few of the specific reasonings he used.

Firstly I mentioned how despite the common misconception, Nasrallah and Hezbollah, are not completely under Iranian control, have their own interests and ultimately can make their own decisions. Nasrallah made that a key point of his speech.

This operation also proves what we have been reiterating over the past years. Let the foe and friend understand, let it be understood by all enemies and friends, that the decisions of the resistance factions is in the hands of their own leader. Since the Iranian revolution, from Khomeini to Khamenei, have always been openly adopting and supporting resistance faction in Lebanon, Palestine and the region. However, they do not exercise any form of authority or mandate on these factions or their command and what happened with Operation Al-Aqsa Typhoon proved this fact. And those who are willing to interpret what is taking place today and what's going to take place in the future, the true decision makers are the leaders of the resistance themselves to the service of their top and true cause.

He interestingly directed this statement to friends and foes. He is not only saying that he makes his own decisions, but that so does Hamas, despite Iranian support, and so that neither him (Hezbollah) nor Iran are directly behind the Oct 7 attack (nor were aware of it).

Elsewhere in his talk he again stressed this point, and specifically indicated that some in the West use any flare up in fighting to call for an attack on Iran. He was protecting his main sponsor while declaring his independence from it.

On to my numbered potential rationales (for not joining in full out war at this time (from the previous quoted post):

1. No one discussed the initial Oct 7 attack with him. Thus he is under no obligation to join now.

   1. This was a main part of the speech. He was unaware of the Oct 7 attack. Additionally he mentioned that it was "100% palestinian" and not a regional conflict.

      Amusingly, in what in Israel would be called "polish" style, he told the sunni jihadists that he is not angry that they did not inform him (previous to the attack), and that he understands that part of the reason for the operation's success, was its secrecy.

2. He is doing already a lot by keeping large IDF forces in the north which cannot join the attack on Hamas.

   1. Perhaps the most developed part of his speech. Nasrallah indicated, that without wanting to get into much more granular specifics which he possesses, about a third of the Israeli army's power, including Air and Naval assets, are deployed in the north due to his efforts, and thus cannot be used against Hamas in neither the Gaza strip or the West Bank.

      He added that elite forces were diverted here and some specific general breakdowns. I can say that he is generally correct that the deployment in the north is very significant.

      It does not affect the Gaza front, as Northern Command and Southern Command can work independently as they are meant to, and there are already more forces than are needed in the southern front. Gaza is relatively small after all, a mere 40 km x 5 km wide (in the north).

      The more important implications of this deployment he also alluded to and will be briefly discuss later on (further down).

3. He will not bring destruction upon Lebanon and that the palestinians must fight their own wars.

   1. Though he did not directly say that they (palestinians) should fight their own wars, that was the speech's implications. Criticism was levied at Arab states, not for not joining the war, but for not even aiding the palestinian people (with supplies, accepting of wounded).

      Compared to their doing nothing, he is already doing a great deal.

      The speech definitely explained that the conflict was 100% palestinian and "and it has no relation at all to any international or regional issue."

      The explicit and implicit conclusion was that his responsibility is Lebanon, and that Hezbollah will alter its operations based on how Israel treats Lebanon.

      Nasrallah says that he wishes the palestinians victory because of several reasons including that it is in the Arab states' in the region interest, but most importantly "And before all that, it is a national, patriotic interest of Lebanon."

4. The leaders of Hamas sit in luxury in Dubai while they demand he, at the front, fight the IDF.

   1. He did not directly criticize the Hamas leadership in exile. However, in the same vein, very interestingly he did significantly criticize the Arab world in general, citing reports that between 22 Arab states in the world, they cannot send one aid truck to Gaza or accept one wounded evacuee.

      While this was largely more defense vs criticism of Hezbollah not doing enough, pointing out that relative to the Arab world, his non-state relatively small organization is doing a massive amount, it touched on a critical and ignored aspect of the debates surrounding the conflict. Hopefully I will have a chance to speak about it soon in a following piece.

5. He may say that he did not like the nature of the attack. That butchering women and children is against Islam, and so that now Hamas must lie on the bed that it made. Strategically it has foolishly unleashed an enraged IDF, and that he wants no part of it in Lebanon.

   1. As constructed, this was the least likely thing he could have said. However, I did correctly note that Nasrallah would be troubled by the unmanly savagery of the Oct 7 attack.

      Not wishing to criticize Hamas for it, he instead simply stated that it did not exist. The reports of the murder of babies, the elderly, children and women, the rape and unspeakable torture of civilians', the butchering of whole families was "zionist propaganda". Whether he believes that this reporting is fake or not, he showed his aversion to this type of behavior, and chose to (likely pretend to) believe that it did not happen. Thus, no criticism is warranted.

      However, the implication is clear. If it did occur, as it unfortunately did, then it is yet another reason why he ought not to risk life and limb and those of his men to come to the terrorists' aid, against those they enraged (rightly so) into a fury.

6. With the IDF at full alert and fully mobilized, this is not the right time to attack.

   1. Not mentioned specifically, but it is certainly the implication in the speech. He is keeping the forces deployed in the north, and all options remain open in the future, including if that (balance of forces) changes. He states that he wishes to calculate Lebanon's interest correctly and not bring harm to her.

7. He may say that he will not join, or fully join, as long as certain red lines are not crossed. IE the expulsion of population to Egypt or complete toppling of Hamas.

   1. Definitely in the speech. He specifically defined that his operations against Israel will escalate (or not) depending on two factors. What continues to happen in Gaza, and Israel's actions in Lebanon (more importantly). He did not name specifics intentionally (as he openly admitted his intent was to remain vague and to leave options open), in order that he not commit himself to a war he clearly does not want.

      Even something as dramatic as the expulsion or transfer of the population of Gaza, which I thought was a red line he might mention, remained unsaid. Nasrallah wants no part of this.

For the first time in many decades, our enemies are afraid of us. The IDF, for the time being at least, was finally unleashed on those who wish us and did us unspeakable harm. Others do not wish to partake.

This is why Nasrallah's speech had as its main goal the plea for all the powers to be to enforce a ceasefire. The way to save Israel's enemies from the unleashed and enraged IDF is to re-leash it. Biden and the Democrats, as enemies of the old western values and friend to all its foes, is all to willing to oblige.

Thus our enemies will prefer to wait for our anger to pass and our persistent political stupidity to return before engaging once again. Nasrallah has thus far skillfully navigated the straits he finds himself in.

Note the very arsenal Hezbollah chooses to arm itself with. The vast bulk of it is not equipment meant to fight the IDF. It is neither useful for invasion southwards nor for defense from IDF invasion northwards. The formidable arsenal are tens of thousands, perhaps up to 100 thousand missiles meant for Israel's cities.

The weaponry is meant to strike at Israel's Achilles heel, its statesmanship (or lack thereof), its politics and policies.

Against an army that won't advance, that believes (unlike Russia) that current international borders are sacred and unmovable, the missile threat is perfect. The IAF alone cannot defeat it from the air. It can paralyze an Israeli government, as it partially is doing now.

Against an army that swiftly advances northwards, the expensive years-amassed Hizbollah missile arsenal is nearly useless. It is but a burden that must be hauled northwards faster than the advancing foe just to save it.

Nasrallah alluded to the abovementioned paralysis in his speech when expanding on what the small group has done and achieved (compared to most of the Arab world). In my lengthy summary piece on the current conflict (which I will link later in the thread as to not hinder this post)

I discussed this in some detail; an aspect of the conflict I have discussed for many many years.

If Israel is not wiling to impose territorial consequences on its foes, it cannot defeat them and should not attempt fighting them, at least if it can avoid it. The same is true for Lebanon.

This leaves Israel in a tricky position vis a vis the northern border. Will not discuss this here at length but if it has come to realize what I have written for years (can't be at peace with someone who is at war with you), then the northern border cannot return to pre-Oct 7 status. How could the residents of the northern towns live in tranquility?

Hezbollah can strike, harder and better than Hamas, at any time and invade northern Israel. Though I want to believe Hezbollah fighters would not behave with the barbarity that Hamasniks did towards women and children, no one wishes to bet on that. Nor does one want to be overrun by people just as long as they don't behead people.

Israel needs to keep a very large (perhaps unsustainable) force in the north, as it is now, or change the situation in Southern Lebanon. The number of reservists in uniform (myself included) cannot remains so indefinitely.

Nasrallah is correct in that the Israeli gov't is facing a dilemma along the northern border that it does not know how to fix (maybe they will ask me). This is his current largest contribution to the war against Israel.

Hopefully, this new enraged, reinvigorated Israel with her people's eyes wide open for the first time in many many years, will know how to ask Nasrallah the question I posted previously (in the quoted post with predictions regarding the Hezbollah's chief's speech).

I must say, with only minutes to dash off the post, during my short visit home before setting out back to the front, I even impressed myself this time, rather hitting and predicting many important points on the head.

Nasrallah has said that it is important to know your enemies in order to defeat them, he is said to have even read Israeli leaders' biographies. I agree with him.