Follow us on social

Nasrallah is dead, spelling end to regional resistance to Israel

Nasrallah is dead, spelling end to regional resistance to Israel

We underestimated Israel's capacity for revenge and the world's ability and/or willingness to stop it

Analysis | QiOSK

With the confirmed assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah today it is clear now that the entire senior command echelon of Lebanese Hezbollah is dead.

That includes the Radwan commander, in charge of operations against Israel on the ground along the Blue Line, and his key subordinates. Also the top IRGC Quds Force people assigned to Lebanon. Add to this, thousands of Lebanese Hezbollah operatives who rated a company pager are out of action, blind, mutilated or dead.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ missile depot and factory in Syria has been destroyed by Israeli commandos. The head of Hamas, Ismail Haniya, was assassinated in Tehran, and his successor is buried alive somewhere in Gaza, his army is kaput and his domain pulverized.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and the Houthi family in Yemen have all attempted to return these favors but failed. Hamas, for obvious reasons, is incapable. Hezbollah’s weak replies raise the question whether Israeli strikes over time have neutered its massive missile and rocket capacity, or its leadership calculated that they had too much to lose if they used it.

And the Houthis have shown just what it means to be a pathetic, tiny actor at the edge of the world.

What went wrong? Well, a number of things, but I think the main problem was a misperception of regional and global attitudes toward their struggle and an utter failure to understand the impact of October 7 on Israeli society and the license that Sinwar’s sadism gave Israel to destroy Hamas, whatever the cost. And of course, the correlation of forces, as strategists used to say, was not in their favor and probably never will be.

Hamas thought that its opening salvo would trigger a multi-front war that would hobble Israel’s military response. Lebanese Hezbollah and the Houthis did respond favorably, if symbolically and, for Hamas purposes, uselessly. Late in the war, Iran launched a barrage of missiles against Israel, but this was staved off by a coalition whose very formation demonstrated Iran’s isolation.

All the resistance parties seemed to think that internecine tensions in Israel prior to Sinwar’s stupid maneuver would hamstring Israel’s ability to counterattack. Instead, as anyone who really understood Israel as Sinwar bragged he himself did, his savage attack unified the country behind a ruthless military and political leadership many Israelis detest on a personal level. Within 24 hours of the attack, the IDF had so many reservists flooding mobilization centers it couldn't supply them all.

And the resistance also seemed to believe that the United States, its allies, and the Global South would rise up and smother Israel with disapproval. They appeared to think that it was 2006, when the U.S. and UN shut down Israeli military operations in Lebanon.

But the IDF had thought a lot about 2006 and concluded that in the next round, Washington was not going to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. Thus there was never any hope for a Gaza ceasefire. And as aging analysts who've seen it all were saying, some South African court rulings were not going to stop the war or shame Israelis for responding as they saw fit for the enormity of October 7.

And then there was Sinwar, who conceived of himself as the Arab Nguyen Giap, and thought that if he killed enough Palestinians, Israel would surrender, But of course Gaza, nothing more than a tiny prison yard, was not North Vietnam with its much larger population, powerful allies, and potent army. Nor was 2023 Israel anything like the fractured and ambivalent United States of 1968. So all Sinwar accomplished was the decimation of a trapped Palestinian population. The rest was beyond his grasp.

What happens now? Israel has demonstrated its tactical prowess. Up to a point, staggering tactical successes can substitute for strategic incompetence, or perhaps just indifference. After all, if one sees oneself in a never-ending war, strategy is beside the point. But now that Israel’s tactical successes have reversed the appalling effects of its strategic intelligence failure — and kept the Saudis, Emiratis and the United States on its side — it might want to reassess its strategic situation with a view to ending its endless war.


Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addresses his supporters through a screen during a rally commemorating the annual Hezbollah Martyrs' Day, in Beirut's southern suburbs, Lebanon November 11, 2023. REUTERS/Aziz Taher
Analysis | QiOSK
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.