Latest news with #ResistanceAxis
Al Manar
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Manar
How Syria's Ahmad Al-Sharaa Fell into the West's Trap
Ahmad Al-Sharaa, previously known as Abu Mohammad Al-Joulani, a unique example of the radical transformations foreseen by the region. Through his 'Jihadist' experience in Afghanistan and Iraq to a political leader in Syria, Al-Sharaa drew a path reflecting the deep contradictions in the Arab geopolitical scene. These transformations lay crucial questions about Syria's future and its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Al-Sharaa emerged from the heart of 'Salafi-jihadist' ideology, with his worldview shaped in the training camps of Iraq during the US occupation. He spent several years imprisoned in 'Bucca' detention facility. He later rose as the leader of Hayaat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) in Syria, positioning the group as a hybrid entity that combines political pragmatism with adherence to Salafi rhetoric. Under Al-Sharaa's leadership, Syria witnessed a dramatic transformation; from a bastion of resistance to a player seeking integration into a new regional order, one influenced by American guardianship and Arab normalization intiatives. Ahmad Al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad Al-Joulani, embodies the culmination of a 'Jihadist' experience that spanned from Afghanistan to Syria through Iraq, over the course of many years and various phases, until it crystallized into a political project under Hayaat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS). HTS that was known to many as a Jihadist alliance that holds a level of political flexibility without giving up its commitment to the essence of 'Jihadism' and its goal to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation, albeit through evolving methods and shifting strategies. The Transformation of Syria's Regional Position For decades, Syria was the cornerstone of the axis of resistance. It supported the Palestinian resistance movements financially and logistically. It faced sanctions and international isolation with steadfastness. However, the new leaders aim to lead the country towards the western axis, where lifting sanctions and economic openness became a priority at the expense of central issues. The project of 'political Jihad,' embodied in Al-Sharaa's rise to power, began transforming the country from part of the Resistance Axis into a Western-aligned axis, both economically and politically. The new Syria opened its doors to Western delegations and responded to pressures to lift sanctions in exchange for strategic shifts in its policies, most notably the so-called 'expulsion of Iranian influence', which for years had served as the umbrella under which the Palestinian resistance, particularly in Gaza, was protected. With this experience reaching power in Syria and taking control of a country with significant geographical, strategic, Islamic, and historical importance, the nation witnessed a major shift in its political trajectory. Syria had, for many years, served as a cornerstone of the Axis of Resistance against the Israeli occupation. It had supported Palestinian and Islamic resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine financially, politically, and logistically, opening its arms to those movements, hosting their offices and camps, and facing the US sanctions and international isolation as a result. Trump and Al-Sharaa Meeting: The Defining Moment In a scene no one could have imagined years ago, Ahmad Al-Sharaa sat next to President of the United States Donald Trump, in an official summit hosted in the Saudi capital, Riyadh earlier this month (May 14). A man raised in the cradle of Salafi-Jihadist ideology, who fought fierce wars under transnational banners, now stands at the helm of power in Damascus, shakes hands with US President Donald Trump, while Gaza burns under a barrage of Israeli airstrikes backed by the US administration. BREAKING: Donald Trump met Syria's Ahmad al-Sharaa in Riyadh and urged him to join the Abraham Accords. — Globe Eye News (@GlobeEyeNews) May 14, 2025 Giving up revolutionary discourse is not the only noticeable thing here, but also the strategic shift that was represented in Al-Sharaa's historic meeting with Trump in Riyadh. A meeting that completely ignored the war crimes in Palestine, while focusing instead on 'economic opportunities' and lifting sanctions. This scene was not isolated, but rather the culmination of a gradual policy that began with severing ties with Iran, marginalizing the role of the Palestinian resistance in official discourse, and engaging in regional projects that may serve as a prelude to normalization with the Israeli enemy. The meeting between Al-Sharaa and Trump was neither a surprising nor an isolated event. Rather, it was the result of a long political trajectory that began when the man shed the mantle of 'global Jihadism' and began repositioning his rhetoric to appeal to Western capitals and court Washington. The same figure who once adopted an anti-Western stance and championed the liberation of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as a central goal now stands at the head of a regime openly embracing the West, presenting itself as a 'potential partner' in the regional stability project, abandoning not only the discourse of confrontation, but even the language of solidarity with Gaza, which, at the very moment of his meeting with Trump, was facing a full-scale genocide. Palestine Absent from the New Discourse One of the striking ironies of this transformation is that when Ahmad Al-Sharaa was asked about terrorism during his visit to France, he made no mention of the terrorism practiced by the Israeli occupation against the people of Gaza—who had once hoped that the new Syrian opposition would become a supporter of their cause. Instead, what happened was the complete opposite. Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa meets France's Macron in — Clash Report (@clashreport) May 7, 2025 What was shocking about the summit that hosted Al-Sharaa and Trump wasn't only its timing, but also its content, as the joint statement, and all the remarks, were void of any reference to the Israeli aggression or the suffering of civilians in the besieged strip. There was no mention of the occupation, nor any condemnation of Israeli terrorism, only economic conversations, promises of reconstruction and a 'new era' in relations with Washington. That silence was no exception, but an extension of accumulated stances through which Al-Sharaa, since his emergence as a so-called 'moderate leader,' has deliberately avoided addressing the Palestinian cause. In all his interviews with Western media, he never mentioned 'Israel' except as a 'regional actor,' and he refrained from using any terms drawn from the rhetoric of resistance or even from acknowledging the suffering of the Palestinian people. In this context, the Director of Public Relations at the Syrian Ministry of Information, Ali Al-Rifai, conducted an interview with 'Israel's' Kan 11 channel, affirming his new government's position seeks peace with all parties in the region, 'including the Israeli enemy', with notable avoidance of the fact that 'Israel' continues to occupy significant territories in southern Syria. Warnings and Outcomes This is what the late Hezbollah Secretary General, martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, warned about in 2011 when he affirmed that Syria's fall from the axis of resistance means its transfer into thewhat he called the 'barn of Arab normalization.' This warning materialized in practice with Al-Sharaa's meeting with Trump in Riyadh, along with a tragic situation in Gaza, where the genocide continues. Al-Sharaa and Trump's meeting, described as historic in New Syria's media and some Arab channels, was a shock to both Syrians and Palestinians, especially with the continued Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip. Damascus was celebrating the lift of the US sanctions and Trump's photos were raised high in the streets, whilst the people of Gaza are suffering from hunger, murder and evacuation, a provoking scenery to the Palestinian people, and specifically, the people of Gaza. The absence of Palestine from Al-Sharaa's speech, not condemning any Israeli aggression in Gaza or the West Bank and his meeting with Trump in Riyadh, sheds the light on a central question: Is the New Syria transitioning towards actual normalization, even if not declared, with 'Israel'? And is this path being tested now through presenting credentials to the West on the basis of severing ties with the Palestinian cause? After claiming to present a new Islamic model of governance, 'Al-Joulani' fell into the West's trap as he has become a replica of regimes that colluded with the West to liquidate the Palestinian cause. He stepped out from under the mantle of Jihadism into an alliance with Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, effectively handing the Zionist entity a blank check to take center stage in the Arab world. False Hopes and Sanctions Al-Sharaa is betting that the openness to Washington and the lifting of sanctions will be the gateway to economic recovery and political stability. However, as the new administration in Damascus believes this path will bring prosperity and stability to the country, it overlooks the example of Sudan, which saw its sanctions lifted in 2017 only for the promised economic relief to evaporate, its economy to collapse and its regime to fall. Similar outcomes have befallen several other nations that rushed toward the West and certain Arab states in search of investments, only to find themselves trapped in dependency and failure. Sanctions are not merely a temporary tool of pressure; they are a mechanism for reshaping states in line with the interests of 'Israel' and the United States where no state is allowed to be strong and independent unless it serves the security of 'Israel'. Whereas those who seek liberation or dare to say 'no' are pushed toward isolation or collapse. In this context, Hazem Al-Ghabra, who served as Senior Advisor for Public Diplomacy for the Middle East at the US State Department in 2016, revealed the mechanism behind the decision to suspend American sanctions on Syria, noting that the information he presented came through direct communication with both the US State Department and the Treasury Department. Al-Ghabra, who maintains extensive diplomatic ties in Washington and Tel Aviv, clarified that the current measure is not lifting of sanctions but rather a temporary suspension. He affirmed that the decision is scheduled for a two-year period, subject to a periodic review every six months to assess the effectiveness of the suspension. According to Al-Ghabra, the first phase of the suspension will cover key sectors, including monetary policy, telecommunications, energy, and air transport. He stressed that a complete and permanent lifting of sanctions is not an easy process, as it requires approval from the US Congress, which remains the sole authority authorized to formally end the sanctions. He further noted that the US administration is approaching the issue gradually, with each step tied to tangible results on the ground whether they be humanitarian or political. Severing Ties with Palestine and Signs of Normalization Since assuming power, Al-Sharaa's leadership has shown a clear urge to sever all what connects Damascus to the Palestinian cause. No talks about Iran, no communication with the Palestinian resistance movements, no moral or political support to any confrontation with 'Israel'. On the contrary, the new regime started establishing a network of understanding with Riyadh and Washington which, according to observers, might later pave the way to a calculated openness to Tel Aviv- even if it begins with backchannel communications or joint economic projects. In this context, the prospect of Syria's normalization with the Zionist entity—currently being tested through Al-Sharaa's leadership policies—is not merely a political option, but a clear betrayal of the Palestinian people, regardless of motives or justifications. Palestine remains the compass of national and patriotic legitimacy, and any authority that bypasses it or turns a blind eye to the suffering of its people cannot claim to represent the nation or defend its rights. It's Either Axis of Resistance or Project of Liquidation But every attempt to sideline Palestine from the Syrian scene will serve only as a test of the legitimacy of any ruling authority in Damascus. The Palestinian cause is not a passing political card. It is an integral part of Syria's contemporary identity and of the ongoing struggle against American and 'Israeli' hegemony in the region. Any authority that bypasses this reality, bargains over it, or treats it as an 'external burden,' will automatically sever its organic connection to the central cause of the Arab world, and—whether willingly or not—become an implicit partner in the project to liquidate the Palestinian cause, even if it does not formally sign a normalization agreement. What is unfolding in Damascus is not a mere political transition, but a comprehensive reshaping of Syria's national identity and regional role. It either be a part of the Al-Quds Axis, with a renewed mindset and more realistic calculations, or to join the American-Israeli 'New Middle East' project, lured by illusory promises of growth and openness. Today, Syria has only two options with no third. It either goes back to its historical role supporting the Palestinian cause, or completely falls towards normalization under the cover of 'reality'. At the same time, Al-Sharaa's movements can not be separated from the wider regional trajectory, where the 'Deal of the Century' and economic incentives serve as tools to impose normalization as an inevitable path. Syria, which for years was the cornerstone of the Resistance Axis, is being tested today through a policy of 'small steps' as follow: Economic openness as a key to normalization: Promises of lifting the sanctions and reconstruction are being used as a trap to lure the regime into the circle of Western dependency. Weakening the Iranian Axis: Expelling the Iranian influence, based on Western perspective, is not a step toward restoring Syrian sovereignty, but rather a means to block any alliance hostile to 'Israel'. Silence in the face of the Occupation aggression: The absence of any condemnation of the 'Israeli' aggression on the part of Al-Sharaa's leadership confirms that Palestine is no longer a priority, but a burden that is replaced by 'strategic partnership'. The greatest danger does not lie in the political shift itself, but in Syria's loss of its role as a pillar of the Arab liberation project. Damascus, which for years hosted Palestinian and Lebanese resistance leaders and provided them with logistical and political support, is now turning into a state that views the Palestinian cause as a 'burdensome legacy.' This is not a tactical repositioning, but a betrayal of the historical legitimacy Syria has held since the 1967 Six-Day War and even earlier events. Moreover, the illusion that 'opening up to the West' will bring stability ignores a clear lesson: no regime in the region is allowed to prosper unless it serves 'Israeli' security. Sudan and Egypt are clear examples: The former saw its regime fall after sanctions were lifted, while the latter became a partner in the blockade of Gaza despite receiving 'US aid.'
Asharq Al-Awsat
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Iran... Pragmatism after the ‘Flood'
Iranian commentators appear to be relaxed about the prospects of the ongoing negotiations with the United States. Some have implied that a honeymoon period is possible with the 'Great Satan' if its intentions are sincere. They speak of a mutual need. Iran needs an agreement that would end the cycles of sanctions and accusations, while the American administration needs an achievement of the size of an agreement over Iran's nuclear deal. They say that Washington has something to offer Tehran and vice versa. They say that the world today is going through a period of reconciliations, not one of heated rhetoric that stokes tensions. Some observers have even said that Donald Trump's administration may pose an opportunity for Iran because it wants to enter Iranian markets and exploit investment opportunities there. Asked about their views, Iranian citizens say that now is not the time of costly confrontations, but cooperation and respect of interests. The participants of the American-Iranian dialogue do not hesitate in saying that the talks are beneficial and constructive and that they have taken preliminary steps that can be built upon. The talks between Washington and Tehran should have taken place amid tensions and should have been teetering on the edge of the abyss. After all, the master of the White House is Donald Trump. He is the man who tore up the previous nuclear agreement that Iran had won under Barak Obama's term. He is the same man who ordered the killing of General Qassem Soleimani near Baghdad airport. He is also the same man who just weeks ago told Iran to choose between a new deal or a possible US-backed Israeli strike. Iran does not normally succumb to such rhetoric, but it did this time. The observer has the right to wonder why Iran suddenly adopted a realistic approach. Is it seeking a truce because Trump really does follow through with his threats? Does it sense that the man who took a decision as significant as the killing of Soleimani would not think twice about giving Benjamin Netanyahu the green light to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities with inevitable American help to complete the mission? Has Tehran derived the lessons it should have from the series of wars that erupted after the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation? It could not save Hamas. It could not save Hezbollah. The scenes of Houthi positions coming under American fire speak for themselves. Has Tehran realized the extent of the loss that was Syria being taken out of the Resistance Axis after Bashar al-Assad was ousted from power? We mustn't forget about Iraq that wants to steer clear of any possible conflict. Tehran had evidently taken a decision years ago to avoid becoming embroiled in any direct confrontation with the US. I heard this myself from Iranian officials several years ago. I asked the people I met in Tehran a simple question about whether they believe a war would erupt with the US given the constant tensions between them. The answers may have been phrased differently, but they were all the same: 'You are asking about a war that will never happen.' Some did not hesitate in saying that Iran is skilled at living on the brink of war without ever being dragged into one. I asked them to elaborate on this conviction given that war is not really in the cards, and they told me to ignore the heated rhetoric. Iran knows that the American military is a mighty force that is capable of destroying any target in the world. It has no interest in colliding with a force that can take us back several decades, they told me. The American jets can inflict massive damage on our factories, air force and everything we have achieved since the revolution. With these explanations came assertions: We will never surrender to American might. We hold the cards that can exert pressure, and we know how to use them. Moreover, American knows how important Iran is and that it is impossible to replicate the Iraqi experience - toppling the regime through a ground invasion - on its territory. This does not mean that we approve of the American policy in the region, whether in Palestine or beyond. We are in a confrontation with the US, but this confrontation is taking place in the region, not inside Iran. The region will not remain an open field where America can hunt down whoever it wants against the will of the people of the region. We have allies in several places and can bank on the proxies and wars of attrition by proxy. The decision to avert a direct military confrontation with the US was present during the most difficult circumstances the region has endured. It was there when Iran was leading a major coup against the American presence in the Middle East. The suicide operations that had taken place in Beirut were aimed at undermining the American and western presence in Lebanon. Soleimani himself was in charge of depleting the American military presence in Iraq and facilitating the infiltration of 'jihadists' into Iraq. The Iranian coup was an obvious success when Syria became a solid member of the Axis of Resistance. Soleimani paved a road from Tehran to Beirut passing through Iraq and Syria. But this is now in the past. Beirut and Damascus have changed. The Houthis are taking shelter in tunnels in a war without end. The Axis was broken by Israeli barbarism, American support and technological superiority. Has Iran acknowledged that the era of coups that changed the balances of power in the region, as well as four of its maps, is over? There is no doubt that the Iran that headed towards the current negotiations with the US is taking part with fewer cards. Hamas itself has proposed a five-year truce and abandoned its desire to keep running Gaza. Hezbollah has limited options. It cannot go back to war now that Syria is under President Ahmed al-Sharaa's rule. It is also widely known that the majority of the Lebanese people oppose a return to war and support limiting the possession of weapons in their country to the state.
Memri
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Former Shi'ite Iraqi Militia Leader Aws Al-Khafaji Turns Against Iran: There Is No Such Thing As The Resistance Axis; Iran Only Considers Us Fellow Shi'ites When It Serves Its Interests; Iraq Defended Iran Against ISIS, Not The Other Way Around
Former Shi'ite Iraqi militia leader Aws Al-Khafaji criticized Iran in a March 16, 2025 interview with Al-Sharqiya TV (Iraq). He dismissed the concept of the 'Resistance Axis,' questioning Iran's connection to resistance. Al-Khafaji argued that Iran has not sacrificed martyrs for Palestine, unlike Iraqis who fought for Palestine and are buried in Hebron. He accused Iran of only acknowledging Iraqis as Shi'ites when it serves its interests. Al-Khafaji further stated that Iraq acted as a "dam," preventing ISIS from threatening Iran and the Gulf, thereby saving Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. He pointed out that while Iran claims to have saved Iraq, only 100 Iranian "advisers" were killed in Iraq compared to 22,000 Iraqi casualties. When asked whether he would support Iran in the event of an American attack, he stated that he would do what he could to support Muslims against the infidels. Aws Al-Khafaji: "There is no such thing as the Resistance Axis. This notion is foreign to resistance. [...] "When did Iran become 'resistance'?" Interviewer: "Ever since I was born, they have been chanting about resistance and Jerusalem." Al-Khafaji: "Name a single Iranian martyr in Palestine. The Hebron graveyard is full of Iraqi martyrs. [...] "Since when has Iran been our Shi'ite [strategic] depth?" Interviewer: "Since 1979." Al-Khafaji: "Okay. So were we not Shi'ites in 1991, when we were thrown into mass graves? Were we not Shi'ites in 1999, when sayyed Muhammad Al-Sadr and his two sons were assassinated, and a large intifada broke out? Members of the Badr organization and some other mujahideen [exiled] in Iran were trying to enter Iraq, and they were prevented by the Islamic Republic? Were we not Shi'ites when we fought America and the occupation, throughout Iraq from 2003 to 2005? Nobody supported us. Why? When we were thrown into mass graveyards, we were surprised to see Uday Saddam Hussein and Hussein Kamel signing agreements with the Islamic Republic. [...] "Now all of a sudden we are Shi'ites, when it serves their interests? So it is not a 'unity of fronts,' but a unity of interests." [...] Al-Khafaji: "In 2014, [ISIS] threatened Iraq? No. It threatened Iran and the Gulf. We acted like a dam [stopping ISIS]. We made the sacrifices and saved Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia from ISIS. [...] "May Allah have mercy on the Iranian advisors who were martyred [in Iraq], but there were no more than 100 of them, while we had 22,000 [casualties], but they are still saying that it was Iran that defended Iraq." [...] Interviewer: "What if America wages war against Iran?" Al-Khafaji: "I will support Iran against America." Interviewer: "You will stand by Iran against America?" Al-Khafaji: "As much as I can." Interviewer: "What do you mean?" Al-Khafaji: "What capabilities do I have?" Interviewer: "You will support it with prayers?" Al-Khafaji: "My capabilities are prayers, rhetoric, demonstrations, weapons, targeting of [American] interests..." Interviewer: "So if Iran is attacked, you will target American interests in Iraq?" Al-Khafaji: "I will do what I can." Interviewer: "What if someone gives you weapons?" Al-Khafaji: "Who will?" Interviewer: "It doesn't matter. Let's say you get weapons." Al-Khafaji: "I pledge before Allah that I will stand by the oppressed and against the oppressor." Interviewer: "Will you target American interest in Iraq if the U.S. wages war against Iran?" Al-Khafaji: "If I can, I will." Interviewer: "Naturally, if you can..." Al-Khafaji: "Yes." Interviewer: "In any case, you will stand by Iran." Al-Khafaji: "Of course. I support the Muslims against the infidels, brother. That goes without saying."
Shafaq News
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Palestinian faction: Resistance axis preparing unannounced strikes
Shafaq News/ The Resistance Axis is preparing military surprises against Israel without prior announcement of the nature or timing of operations, a senior Palestinian faction official said on Tuesday. Abdel Majid Shadid, a central committee member of Fatah al-Intifada, told Shafaq News that the resistance alliance plays a crucial role in supporting the Palestinian cause, with the Houthis being "a backbone of this axis." "There is ongoing coordination with Hezbollah, and we are confident that they will not abandon the Palestinian people in the face of this genocide," Shadid said. He emphasized that Hezbollah's involvement depends on battlefield developments but insisted the group remains committed to the resistance alliance. "Any military action by Hezbollah or other resistance factions will be a field surprise for the Zionist occupation, without a prior official announcement," he added. Shadid also warned against escalating tensions in southern Lebanon, stating that Hezbollah will not allow Israel to impose a new reality or alter the region's dynamics. The official's announcement came at a time when Israel ramped up its military operations against Gaza on Tuesday, carrying out heavy airstrikes, and killing more than 400 people.
Al Binaa
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Al Binaa
Who Dares to Question the Future of Arms After the Syrian Massacres?
• The debate over the resistance's weapons is no longer a legalistic discussion framed by the Taif Agreement, Resolution 1701, or the false claims propagated by those who insist the ceasefire agreement contains provisions that do not exist. Nor is it about those parroting American and Israeli diktats, attempting to tie reconstruction funds to the disarmament of the resistance, battles of rhetoric and politics that their proponents have waged and lost. The reason is simple: the resistance agreed to take a step back in favour of the state, withdrawing from South Litani to allow the state's pillars and certain Lebanese factions, though not hostile to the resistance, yet unenthusiastic about it, to test their faith in diplomacy. They naively believed that if the resistance steps back, then the Americans could pressure the occupying entity on Lebanon's behalf, particularly with a U.S.-friendly government in power. Yet, since the ceasefire on November 27, 2024, the outcome has been nothing short of disillusioning. The violations committed against Lebanese lives, property, and sovereignty exceed mere infractions; they amount to an open-ended occupation, an unrestrained campaign of killing and destruction. The state stands powerless, not only incapable of action but even of protest, reduced to enforcing sovereignty only where it aligns with American approval, such as blocking funds that could aid reconstruction. • Likewise, the discussion over the resistance's arms is no longer a matter of political pragmatism or national interest, framed by the question of 'how do we protect our country?' The answer has become painfully clear: wagering on appeasement, whether directed at Washington directly or at Tel Aviv indirectly or directly, hoping the occupation will relent it's aggression on Lebanon, has proven to be a recipe for failure. Nowhere is this failure more evident than in Syria, where a regime that once burned its own hands lighting candles for American and Israeli favour has been rewarded with nothing but devastation. It stripped itself of heavy weaponry, opened its airspace for the occupying entity to strike at will, destroying key Syrian military positions without restraint or a timeframe. It transformed Syria from a conduit of the Resistance Axis – a corridor sustaining the Resistance in Lebanon and Palestine – into a fragmented outpost severed from its role. By cutting ties with Iran and Hezbollah and sealing its borders with Iraq and Lebanon, Syria's reward was the unchecked expansion of the occupation, reaching the outskirts of Damascus. Today, 10,480 square kilometres, the sum of the three districts (Quneitra 1,200 square kilometres, Suwayda 5,550 square kilometres, and Daraa 3,730 square kilometres) – an area equivalent to, or slightly exceeding, Lebanon's entire landmass, have been declared an Israeli 'security zone', disarmed by demand. No one in Lebanon can delude themselves into believing that Lebanon can offer anything more to secure a better fate. The only viable path to protecting Lebanon lies in cultivating strength. Until the state itself becomes a source of sufficient power, it has no choice but to merge its legitimacy with that of its people and their means of defense including elements of their resistance's strength. • The debate over the fate of the resistance's weapons has now transcended the realm of national interest, it has become existential. After the massacres along the Syrian coast, where thousands perished, one reality stands indisputable: Syria's new order will be one of two things. Either a duplicitous regime that harbours and sponsors mass murder, bearing direct responsibility for an orchestrated act of ethnic cleansing reminiscent of Gaza and South Lebanon, or a regime that, though it may espouse different rhetoric, lacks the authority to enforce it, leaving its armed factions free to impose their own brand of sectarian slaughter. In either case, the declared intent of these groups toward the Resistance's social base in Lebanon is clear. Given the state's limited capacity to confront such threats, exposed in the battles of Arsal years ago, and the likelihood of international and regional pressure to accommodate the new Syrian order, the stakes have been raised. Reports suggest that the broader plan to topple Syria's government follows a coordinated Turkish-Arab-Israeli-American strategy aimed at encircling and weakening the Resistance in Lebanon. Under this scheme, Syrian factions aligned with the new regime would be tasked with completing what Israel's war failed to accomplish, eradicating the Resistance. Faced with this reality, the Resistance's social base will cling to its weapons with unyielding resolve, prepared to fight for them, even if it means defying its own leadership should it ever contemplate compromise. These arms are no longer just a means of national defense, they are a matter of survival. And survival is not just for the Resistance's supporters alone; it extends to all those who watched their brethren slaughtered along the coast, their cries of agony echoing unanswered, just as Patriarch John X Yazigi reminded the world in his speech yesterday.
