SeventyTwoTrillion

Very interesting interview.

TLDR:

• Hezbollah isn't meaningfully constrained by either Lebanese public opinion (this is more firmly behind them than ever) nor the potential for economic damage (the economy is already in such dire straits that it's just going from Horrible Situation A to Horrible Situation B). The "official" Lebanese leadership and military also appears pretty okay with Hezbollah, at least compared to during the 2000s when there were important Lebanese people directly saying that Israel should keep bombing southern Lebanon.
• Hezbollah and the rest of the Resistance Axis does not seek to impose itself as the spearhead of anti-Israeli military actions; it always asks what the Palestinian militants want and need for them to do. The Palestinian cause has been unifying for the Middle East and other Muslim countries for many decades now and has special significance that Westerners may not understand when they merely say "Why ain't Hezbollah starting the war up, then?" That being said, Hezbollah has been maintaining a moderate intensity war with Israel since October 7th that it is not deterred from escalating into high-intensity war if need be - but they do not actively seek it.
• Hezbollah is unwilling to tolerate military actions or assassinations deep inside Lebanese territory, regardless of whether the officials assassinated are Hamas or Hezbollah or anybody else. It was forced to respond in order to reestablish deterrence, and effectively did so with the attack on the Meron base, as well as a sudden uptick in the number of Israelis wounded on the northern front.
• Hezbollah's stated casualty numbers are probably about right, because it's very hard to hide deaths in Islamic culture, as large funerals are held for the deceased. This is obviously different to Western cultures, where small, quiet funerals can be held without seeming at all odd, and thus deaths kept secret.
• Israel knows that a war with Lebanon will be a disaster - there is a reason why it has committed unbelievable atrocities in Gaza for months now, with zero regard for human rights or decency, but has not done the same in Beirut or even really southern Lebanon. It's not because the Israelis think that Lebanese people are more their equal, but because they deeply fear the repercussions. Israel may see its only potential winning move as getting the US involved alongside them, but this will introduce further problems as a two-front war becomes a multi-front war throughout the entire region, with US military bases in Syria and Iraq as sitting ducks.
• Hezbollah probably finds all the Europeans and others talking to them and trying to warn them against getting involved deeply funny. They're called the Resistance Axis for a reason - if they aren't resisting Israel and the US, then they might as well give up and become farmers or something. It's kind of the whole point of existing as an organization at all.
• The coalition and alliance of state actors (Iran, kinda Syria) and non-state actors (Hezbollah, Hamas, kinda Ansarallah) is deeply fascinating and is incongruent with Western models of alliances. As the article I quoted up there states, it's based on ideology and shared history and grievances, not mere transanctions or private interest or anything like that. While Iran is obviously the most powerful entity in that alliance, claiming that the rest of the Resistance are mere proxies is simply bad analysis.
• We're in uncharted territory, and whether regional war will begin is unknown (this video was published 13 days ago; I would argue that we are now in a regional war by definition with the bombing of Yemen by a non-Israeli actor). Israel is in a uniquely bad position, seemingly unable to create any actual military victories in Gaza or southern Lebanon (creation of false narratives of victory don't count, and neither does mass murder of civilians - these are standard Israeli past-times). Assassinations of officials is also a very inferior facsimile of victory - these people aren't unique, irreplaceable leaders, and they also aren't especially well-protected. This means that Israel is becoming increasingly desperate. Desperate governments and ideologies do very, very stupid things.

they will fill in the context with assumptions.

this is why it always helps to actually, y'know, read stuff. at a minimum, remembering articles from more than a week ago. but then they probably wouldn't be liberals.

I read comments convinced that the countries tanked relations with each other and were careening into war for absolutely no fucking reason. It's kind of analogous to AI hallucinations, in a way: GIGO.

luckily, I knew just enough about Iran-Pakistan relations (not exactly besties, but very far from hostile) to know that they obviously weren't about to go to war, leading me to be very confused when people, predominately liberals, were speculating whether the mutual strikes would eventually lead to war, to the point where I wondered if there was something they knew that I didn't. fortunately, it seems that it was the other way around.

striking the territory of a power armed with nuclear missiles always makes you hold your breath for a second, but it's not some novel concept. Ukraine's been doing it to Russia for years now. hell, they've technically (on a very small scale) invaded a nuclear power on territory that they both agree is Russian.

absolutely classic "we fucked up before, but THIS TIME it's actually fine and cool and good and it'll all work out"

repeat until the empire collapses

purely in terms of what it would do for posting on Hexbear, I think the middle column would be the funniest

The Guardian: The Houthis are not a group that can be bombed into extinction – here’s why

By Amal Saad, lecturer in politics and international relations at Cardiff University. The article is posted below in whole.

The war launched by the “axis of resistance” against Israel and the US marks the first time in history that a coalition of non-state actors has collectively come to the defence of another non-state actor, namely Hamas. Spearheaded by Iran, the axis includes Syrian militias, the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU) and Yemen’s Houthis or, to give them their official name, Ansar Allah. For the past three months, the latter three have taken the initiative, launching attacks on Israeli and US targets in support of their Palestinian allies.

But rather than acknowledge these groups as having motives and interests of their own, the US, UK and Israel continue to reduce them to a transnational network of Iranian proxies whom they believe can be threatened and bombed into submission, a point made clear by yet another wave of overnight airstrikes. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying dynamics within the axis and of the unshakeable unity of its members, all of which could make western powers’ intervention in the region even more costly.

Unlike traditional western coalitions, which are created ad hoc by like-minded states to fight a common threat without any long-term commitments, the axis of resistance began as an enduring alliance that developed into a wartime coalition. Since its inception, what bound the core members together was the mutual provision of military and political support to confront Israel. While Iran furnished Hezbollah, Hamas and other Palestinian groups with longstanding military and financial assistance, Syria offered its territory as a secure supply route for Hezbollah and as a safe refuge for Hamas’s leaders. For its part, Hezbollah provided technical and military training to Hamas, including bomb and tunnel-making expertise, and along with Iran, smuggled weapon-manufacturing technology to the West Bank and Gaza.

In 2013 the axis formed its first wartime coalition, in support of the Syrian state. Hezbollah officially intervened in that war and persuaded Iran to deploy its Revolutionary Guards to Syria, while the newly formed PMU followed suit, further expanding the axis. Alongside the coalition’s role in Syria, Iran and Hezbollah directly intervened in Iraq in 2014 to assist the PMU in fighting Islamic State. The final addition to the axis were the Houthis, who received military and political assistance from Iran and, according to some reports, military training from Hezbollah, in their war with a Saudi-led coalition that started in 2015.

What makes the axis such a cohesive and durable alliance is its deep-seated ideological pillars and shared strategic objectives. All its actors subscribe to an anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist agenda, with the Palestinian cause as the focal point. Today, it shares two common aims: to force Israel into an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza, and to expel US troops from Iraq and Syria. In pursuing these aims, the non-state actors in this alliance are acting in accordance with their own political beliefs and strategic interests rather than following Iranian diktat. While Iran has offered material support to the non-state actors within the axis, such assistance has not translated into the kind of exercise of power that characterises sponsor-proxy relationships. This view is shared by the US intelligence official Brian Katz, who has argued that Iran’s non-state allies “are no longer simply Iranian proxies. Rather, they have become a collection of ideologically aligned, militarily interdependent, mature political-military actors committed to mutual defence”. In essence, the nature of this alliance is organic and symbiotic, as opposed to transactional and hierarchical.

This was most recently demonstrated by Hamas’s surprise 7 October attack on Israel of which, according to Israeli and US accounts, Iran had no foreknowledge. Having said that, there does appear to have been a pre-planned “forward defence” strategy whereby Hezbollah, the Houthis and PMU groups would take the offensive and initiate strikes against Israel and the US should Hamas require such assistance. This strategy is being executed today by means of tactical military coordination, which is reportedly occurring within several joint operations’ rooms in various capitals across the region. Within this strategy, Hezbollah assumes the role of battle management whereby it directs, plans and coordinates military operations across the different conflict theatres. Three battle arenas outside Gaza are being fought in sync: Hezbollah’s moderate-intensity war with Israel, the PMU’s attacks on US and Israeli targets in Syria, Iraq and Israel itself, and the Houthis’ attacks on cargo ships in the Red Sea and occasional strikes on Israel. All fronts are synchronised to pause when the fighting in Gaza is suspended, as demonstrated by the temporary truce in Gaza in late November.

An alliance characterised by such a high level of coordination, reflecting a unity of purpose and vision requires the US and its allies to radically alter their approach to this conflict. The assumption that “sustained” military action against these actors will break their will to continue fighting is as misguided as it is dangerous. On the contrary, military solutions that expand the scope of the conflict will only invite more coordinated responses from across the axis. Western leaders would do well to reflect on the reality that they are not merely trying to protect shipping routes, but are waging an unwinnable war on an ideologically united and tenacious alliance of powerful non-state actors.

The US and UK strikes on Yemen have only increased the prospects of a full-blown regional war, given that the Houthis have now threatened to widen the scope of their campaign to include “all US and UK interests” in the region. Yet the Lebanese-Israeli front remains the most flammable, considering that Israel is champing at the bit for a war with Hezbollah. As the latter is the most powerful non-state actor in the axis of resistance, if not the world, such a war would be the most far-reaching and mutually destructive. Nothing short of a ceasefire in Gaza can prevent the region from turning into a powder keg.

Sir, during this professional special forces operation, I had strategically ascertained that the optimal manuever would be to advance into the room and establish a defensive position against hostile terrorist forces. In this high-pressure situation, I then proceeded to equip my tactical bulletproof military-grade blanket. Simultaneously, a kinetic event occurred in my military-grade underwear. Sir, I am pleased to report that my rapid responses to external threats extended our lifespans significantly.

It's all a giant grift

it's why "This action/event/war benefits American arms companies" isn't the same thing as saying "This action/event/war benefits the American empire." In a certain sense you could even say they're somewhat opposed, as arms companies wants as much profit as possible from as shittily built weapons as possible, whereas the custodians of empire wants as many good weapons as possible for as little money as possible - and the arms companies are definitely winning. And also constant wars might be good for profits but aren't necessarily good for the stability of the American empire over the medium to long term (or hell, maybe even short term now that even very poor countries can create a meaningful resistance to imperialism)

The UK House of Lords has delayed the satanically racist bill that would send immigrants to Rwanda, because British history is such that every now and then, you recreate the policy of transportation to Australia from the fucking 18th-19th centuries. The "democratically elected" House of Commons sent it through, while these ancient bougie motherfuckers stopped it, so...

Crit... ugh... critical support to the Hou... ...fuck, I can't say it.

After the vote, right-wing figures attacked the move. Nigel Farage weighed in, provocatively saying “We must sack all current members of the House of Lords.” It was unclear what constitutional mechanism he was referring to when claiming the lawmakers must be “sacked".

Nigel Farage = Robespierre?

my non-boring 2024 bingo grid:

Source is AryJeay's telegram account, which quotes from both Resistance and Israeli news. This is about the big explosion yesterday that owned a bunch of Zionist soldiers in central Gaza.

The Gazan Resistance's version of events:

At exactly 4PM yesterday, the Qassam Brigades executed a complex operation east of Al-Maghazi camp. They targeted a building housing a Zionist engineering force, with an anti-personnel shell, causing the ammunition and engineering equipment it possessed to explode.

Simultaneously, the fighters destroyed a Merkava tank, that was providing cover for the force, with a Yassin-105 rocket.

They also detonated a minefield blowing up another Zionist force in the same location, resulting in casualties, including deaths and injuries. The fighters withdrew safely to their bases.

This operation resulted in 24 confirmed IOF kills with many more injured & missing.

A different version of events, which AryJeay attributes to Israel.

Hamas forces fired an RPG rocket at a building.

Two buildings, some 600 meters from the border, had been rigged up with around 20 mines for detonation. The RPG fire from a few dozen meters away likely set off the mines, causing the structures to collapse and killing 19 soldiers inside and near them.

An IOF tank guarding the operation spotted the Hamas forces and was about to return fire, but before managing to do so, the gunmen fired another RPG, hitting the tank and killing 2 israeli troops.

AFAIK though, Israel (at least initially) claimed that the Yassion-105 struck the tank and only wounded them. Either way, an interesting admission from the "actually, RPGs do nothing to our tanks" people I suppose.

In addition, Hezbollah has once again hit the Meron airbase, which apparently activated a backup system after the first hit some days ago took out its capabilities.

There have also been rumors that a sensitive target - apparently a Rafael arms factory - in Haifa was struck a couple days ago, but it's hard to get much information on it due to military censorship, so a big question mark there.

Yemen was also bombed again, probably in response to the US military cargo ship that was definitely not hit, no sirree.

yeah, I could see the average American zoomer going "well, what's going on in Palestine is a tragedy and I've seen those awful videos, but the Houthis indiscriminately hitting ships is just way out of line. international shipping is sacrosanct and needs to be maintained for The Economy." because they have no idea what's going on with it or how those two things connect. somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but I imagine that the average American perception is a) Ansarallah are terrorist pirates who are just hitting ships totally at random and for no real reason other than they're evil or angry, and b) they have no idea that has even been a war in Yemen, nor what a "Yemen" even was prior to a couple months ago, and certainly have no idea of the massive civilian death toll

"we shifted from directly airstriking Gaza every day multiple times, each time killing tens or even hundreds of civilians, to airstriking a little less. also, we're totally content to let half a million of them slowly starve to death, but if you really think about it, that's not really our fault. they could go farming or fishing or something. in winter. well, they'd have to fix the fields that we've burned and bombed and trampled over... and, uh, hope for rain, because we've poured concrete into every well we can find..."