Efforts to Disarm the Resistance on Three Fronts: What Is the US and Israel’s Strategy?
according to the English section of webangah News agency, citing Mehr News Agency, the Al-Mayadeen news platform analyzed the Israeli regime’s approach toward the weapons of resistance groups in the region. It described this as a united battle fought simultaneously on three distinct fronts.Although Yemen is not exempt from these conflicts,its geographic and socio-political context places it in a different position.
Palestinian Resistance Weapons
The core of America’s strategy for Gaza and the West Bank centers on dismantling Hamas by removing it from palestine’s geographical and political landscape, alongside disarming resistance forces in both territories.
Weapons held by Palestinian resistance have inflicted some of the most severe political, security, and military blows against the Israeli regime.Nevertheless,factions that have experienced previous failures against Israel have accepted Israel’s demand for disarmament.They refuse to let future generations remember barefoot fighters chasing Merkava tanks or allow Palestinian determination for resistance to remain alive because they regard compromise as “the only strategic option for Arabs.”
hezbollah’s Weapons
In recent weeks, Lebanon’s Hezbollah has raised its voice strongly about this issue, describing their battle over arms as a “Karbala-like” struggle. The group highlights that Israel continues violations without honoring any commitments-expanding occupation zones, detaining prisoners-and threatens Lebanon with a new round of conflict.
Under current tough circumstances,some Lebanese are rushing to disarm Hezbollah to drag Lebanon back into civil war-era dynamics and enable Israeli exploitation aimed at undermining regional resistance. The Lebanese government has passed thru two phases regarding weaponry policy: first aligning with plans advocating “immediate unconditional disarmament” and then adopting a “gradual approach” toward developments.
Al-Mayadeen adds that Hezbollah faces three options amid ongoing tensions. Surrendering arms before achieving its goals would be akin to “open suicide.” Refusing would risk another war with Israel. Therefore, hezbollah pursues a third path-pressuring its government and allies to urge Washington and Tel Aviv toward engagement with Beirut’s demands while pushing national dialog toward establishing “a national strategy for security and defense.”
Faced with this complexity, Lebanon’s government balances between three difficult choices: first-reversing prior decisions demanding exclusive control over arms based on Hezbollah’s stance-which risks alienating Arab allies and international partners; second-enforcing these decisions forcibly-which seems unlikely due to fragile national unity risks triggering internal conflict; third-collaborating with Hezbollah by inviting dialogue leading to consensus on a national defense strategy while simultaneously pressuring Israel through Washington, Brussels, and Paris to honor its obligations.
However crucially, Lebanon’s officials lack independent decision-making authority; foreign interventions heavily influence final outcomes.
Iraqi Resistance Weapons
The US-Israel confrontation with iraq’s popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) is harshly complex politically and militarily. Washington employs two main tactics in its campaign against PMF forces:
- The weaponization of sanctions coupled with threats aimed at reverting Iraq indefinitely back into 1990s-era isolation;
- A threat leveraging Israeli military power as intimidation directed at Iraq itself;
Reports indicate that Washington warns Tel Aviv may replicate their combat scenarios used against Lebanese resistance within Iraq.
Defending PMF weapons proves challenging under such pressures. Efforts also target Shiite religious authorities in Najaf aiming for renouncement of their fatwa endorsing defensive jihad-the foundation behind PMF formation-but historically these authorities remain committed supporters of resistance options.
