By Ihab Shawqi

A year after the overwhelming presence of the great martyr, the late Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah — contrary to what the enemy hoped would be a year of absence and imagined collapses — the enemy and its rivals have become convinced of the credibility of the Resistance’s slogans, which constitute a comprehensive strategy summed up in the concise, powerful slogan: “We remain loyal to the pledge”.

Here, commemorations and celebrations are merely a dating of an event, not a reminder of a person who is continually present — for the great symbols and rare historical and spiritual leaders of the caliber of the Sayyed of the Resistance’s martyrs transcend the notions of physical presence or public appearances and enter the realms of inspiration, loyalty, doctrine, pledge and covenant. Thus, the Sayyed remains present through his spiritual, intellectual and organizational authority in the hearts, leadership, cadres and broad constituency of the party.

The leadership of Hezbollah, represented by Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem, bears no difficulty in honoring that pledge nor sees it as a burden; Sheikh Naim and the Sayyed’s comrades were partners in the path, in shaping the pledge and guardians of it.

There is no doubt that this presence and steadfastness, despite the reversal of regional circumstances and balances of power and the volte-face of many who claimed to be friends of the resistance, owe their credit to the idea of the strategic path and to the late leader’s scientific and strategic management by which he developed the resistance — transforming it from the margins of armed resistance movements into a weighty regional force across military, political and strategic spheres.

Many neglect this strategic dimension of Sayyed Nasrallah’s personality and fail to give it its true measure, even though it is the most important aspect of developing the resistance, its readiness, its endurance and its survival and defiance in the face of a series of colonial assaults, Arab collusion, and internal conspiracies — all factors sufficient to topple major armies and prominent states.

Perhaps the proper entry point for addressing the late leader’s strategic thought lies in the idea of the path, which he spoke about on the occasion of “Resistance and Liberation Day” in 2021, when he said that the liberation in 2000 established the era of victories — “and that day the resistance dedicated that victory to all of Palestine, because that was the goal” — and that the results of the 2000 victory “were strategic”, so “the enemy’s commanders were warned of the strategic dangers of that defeat”.

He summed it up by saying: “The achievement in 2000 placed the enemy, the friend, the Palestinian cause, and the conflict before a different strategic path”.

In short, what Sayyed said reveals that the resistance has a strategic objective — full liberation — a trajectory that evolved from liberating southern Lebanon to building a force that preserves victory, then creates deterrent mechanisms, builds offensive capabilities, and develops alliances to form geopolitical axes that evolved into the Al-Quds axis and the resistance front.

Moreover, the building and development of power did not happen randomly but followed a strategic path that relies on the role of effective institutions rather than merely formal ones, and on strategies of total war that encompass military, psychological, cyber, and economic warfare, as well as the management of alliances.

At the level of details, Sayyed employed the latest methods of hybrid warfare — blending asymmetric tactics such as tunnels, drones, and precision-guided rockets with conventional army tactics — and he built units that resembled regular military formations in their reconnaissance systems, mobilization, specialization, and geographic deployment.

He conducted his campaigns with care for Lebanon and its national dimension: he avoided dragging into conflict those who did not wish to be involved, insisted on national unity and internal peace, and respected the Lebanese state and its institutions. The party still calls for a Lebanese defensive strategy in which the resistance is a partner, not a state within a state.

Perhaps the clearest evidence of the Islamic Resistance’s strategic trajectory is its influence and inspiration on other Arab and global resistance movements: other movements have followed its organizational model, its focus on popular bases and media, its investment in cyber and technological development, and its institutionalized approach.

Anyone who impartially observes Hezbollah’s institutions knows they possess a strategic character that cultivates new generations grounded in the creed of resistance, insight, wisdom and a synthesis of patriotism with commitment to the nation’s causes. One also sees the strategic imprint in efforts to achieve economic self-reliance to confront sieges and their consequences — institutions oriented toward the future and addressing emergent challenges as readily as current ones.

A review of the martyr’s speeches and the 2009 political document reveal the clarity of his vision and reading of the international and regional struggle, the balances of power, and the role of resistance movements — and, specifically, Hezbollah’s assignment of itself in accordance with that comprehensive, penetrating analysis.

Those who study his view of the Al-Aqsa Flood — his insistence that what follows it will not be as what preceded it, his assessment that America is the actual leader of the aggression, and his warning that America’s and “Israel’s” allies are not safe from being targeted — and who then observe current events, especially after the targeting of Qatar, the violation of Syria’s sovereignty, and the threats of aggression against Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, will recognize the correctness of his perspective.

A year that the enemy hoped would witness collapse and surrender for the resistance instead proved the Resistance’s steadiness and its retention of deterrence, despite strategic patience in the face of daily violations and crimes. The enemy has limits in provoking the resistance; much of what it does aims to stir internal pressure and push toward a civil war to exhaust Lebanon and the resistance. Meanwhile, the resistance preserves its timing, wisdom, pledge and strategic path — the path developed by the martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and entrusted to Sheikh Naim, his comrades, the Resistance’s popular base and those standing watch on the front lines.