In a significant qualitative and field development in the military operations carried out by Hezbollah fighters on the Lebanese-Palestinian front, Saturday, March 7, 2026, witnessed a wide-ranging and unprecedented escalation in the pace and geographical scope of military operations. This decisive escalation came as a natural and legitimate response to the heinous Israeli aggression that targeted civilians and infrastructure deep inside Lebanon, reaching as far as the southern suburbs of Beirut, crossing all red lines and violating traditional rules of engagement.
The Islamic Resistance's operations, which numbered 33 on Saturday, were far from being a routine reaction. Rather, they constituted a strategic turning point, carrying highly significant messages on multiple levels. The operations ranged from well-executed and tactical ambushes on the border to painful and deep strikes within the heart of the Zionist entity, confirming that the Resistance possesses the capability to respond with equal force and quality, and even with advanced tools, deterring the enemy and exposing the fragility of its defenses.
This report analyzes the events of this eventful day, detailing 33 military statements, to paint a comprehensive picture of the field situation, and to reveal the strategy adopted by the resistance to achieve the equation of deterrence and protect Lebanon.
Ground and Tactical Counterattack: Deciding the Ground Battle:
The Lebanese land depth, specifically Amel Mount region, became the stage for the most significant tactical event of the day: repelling a hostile Israeli airborne landing operation.
The Well-Planned Ambush in Nabi Sheet Outskirts: In an advanced intelligence and security operation, the resistance was able to detect the enemy movement from its very beginning. Four Zionist helicopters infiltrated from the Syrian direction and landed an infantry force at the triangle formed by the outskirts of Yahfoufa, Khraibeh, and Maaraboun, with the aim of advancing towards Nabi Sheet. Here, the resistance demonstrated high vigilance, as the fighters engaged the Zionist force upon its arrival at the cemetery in the eastern neighborhood. This early engagement thwarted the element of surprise on which the enemy had relied.
Managing the Withdrawal Battle: After the enemy force was exposed and suffered material and human losses, it was forced to withdraw under heavy fire from warplanes and helicopters, which carried out approximately forty airstrikes. Here, the resistance's skill in managing the battle became evident. Artillery fire was concentrated on the perimeter of the engagement and the withdrawal routes, turning them into additional ambushes. Simultaneously, the participation of villagers in providing fire support reflected the popular solidarity with the resistance and made Lebanese soil a hostile environment for the enemy.
Pursuing the Enemy Remnants: The response was not limited to the initial counterattack. Hours later, the evacuation area in Nabi Sheet mountains was targeted with rocket barrages (Statement 3), confirming the continuation of the attacks and denying the enemy a safe withdrawal.
In parallel, along the border strip, the resistance carried out a series of focused operations targeting enemy movements and troop concentrations:
Targeting enemy positions and advance points: Enemy concentrations were monitored and destroyed at sensitive locations such as Tell al-Hamams and Khallat al-Asafir (Statement 2), Fatima Gate in Kfarkela (Statements 10, 31), Khallat al-Mahafir in al-Adisa (Statement 32), Hadbat al-Ajal (Statements 28, 33), and Hounin Gate opposite Markaba (Statement 18).
Foiling infiltration attempts: The artillery repelled attempts by the Israeli enemy to advance in “Khanouq” areas of Aitaroun (Statement 24), and from “Avivim” barracks towards Maroun al-Ras plain (Statement 26). The second attempt towards Maroun al-Ras plain was also targeted with a barrage of missiles (Statement 29). These operations drew a red line against any Zionist attempt to advance on the ground, and confirmed that the resistance is in control on the ground of the entire border strip.
Strategic Strikes Deep Within – Shattering the Security Equation:
The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon has transcended tactical boundaries, striking deep within the occupied entity, targeting vital military, security, and economic centers, in a clear message that there is no safe haven for the enemy.
Paralysis of Command and Intelligence: Devastating blows were dealt to Israeli decision-making and intelligence centers, most notably the targeting of Glilot base (headquarters of Military Intelligence Unit 8200) near Tel Aviv (Statement 16) with attack drones. This unit is responsible for signals intelligence and espionage. Strikes also targeted the enemy's Northern Command headquarters in Safed (Statement 11), Tel Hashomer base (General Staff headquarters) (Statement 14), and Ramla base (Home Front Command) (Statement 15). This direct targeting of the Israeli enemy's military leadership paralyzes its ability to plan and manage the battle.
Targeting the Economic and Industrial Base: The economic dimension was not overlooked in the resistance's calculations. Haifa Refinery (Statement 4) and Elta Industries northeast of Haifa (Statement 7) were targeted with attack drones, disrupting the enemy's economic and military infrastructure.
Disruption of the Air and Naval Defense Systems: In a qualitative strike, the resistance targeted the Iron Dome radars at “Kiryat Elazar” base (Statement 20), which is the main air defense base in Haifa, thus blinding the air defenses to the sight of incoming missiles and drones. The strategic “Stella Maris” base for maritime surveillance was also bombed (Statement 21), “Haifa Naval” base (Statement 22), “Tefen” base east of Acre (Statement 9), and the “Ein Zeitim” base (Statement 12), thus paralyzing the enemy’s movement in the northern square by land, sea, and air.
Warning Operations and Evacuation of Settlements – Psychological Warfare Excellently:
For the first time, and quite explicitly, the resistance linked rocket fire with warnings to the residents of Zionist settlements. Resistance statements referred to the cities of Nahariya (Statements 13, 19, 23, 30) and Kiryat Shmona (Statements 17, 27) as part of a warning issued by the resistance. This new tactic:
• Transforms settlements into military barracks: By warning them and then targeting them, the resistance imposes a state of permanent or near-permanent evacuation on these cities, paralyzing life and creating immense psychological pressure on the Zionist settlers and the enemy government.
• Disrupts the enemy's plans: It puts the Israeli army with the dilemma of how to protect these vast areas from missiles and drones, especially after the targeting of Iron Dome radars.
In conclusion, a careful reading of the operations of March 7, 2026, reveals the emergence of a new phase in the conflict, characterized by a shift from traditional rules of engagement to a comprehensive and open battle, governed by the will of the resistance and its evolving capabilities. The following lessons can be drawn:
1- Unity of the battlefields and integration of roles: The operations demonstrated remarkable integration between the intelligence role (monitoring the landing), the field role (engagement), and the support role (artillery and missiles), culminating in strategic strikes deep inside enemy territory. This represents a truly exceptional field unity.
2- Expansion of the target bank: The targets were no longer limited to the border area but included the enemy's soft and hard power centers: intelligence (Glilot), the economy (Haifa Refinery), air defense (Kiryat Elazar), and military command (Dado and Tel Hashomer).
3- The failure of the Israeli deterrence theory: The resistance was able to strike targets 135 km away (Ramla base) while engaged in advanced combat on the border with occupied Palestine. This confirms the failure of the Israeli concept of "building warfare" and proves that the new equation is: "If you threaten our heartland, your own heartland's security is at risk."
What happened is more than just a response to aggression; it is a redrawing of the rules of the game and a declaration that Lebanon, with its army, people, and resistance, is unbreakable, capable of protecting its sovereignty and dignity, and ready to deter the enemy and its might. It can be said that the Islamic resistance in Lebanon has proven that the blood of the martyrs will not be shed in vain, and that Lebanon will remain a sovereign, free, and proud nation.
