Ansarollah Website Official Report
Lebanese political and media analyst Dr. Mohammad Shams, director of the news platform Al‑Khanadiq News, affirmed that the latest field response by Hezbollah to ongoing Zionist violations of the ceasefire agreement represents a strategic turning point.
In an exclusive interview with Ansarollah website, Shams said that the Lebanese resistance has reshuffled the cards and demonstrated that the equation in Lebanon is no longer determined by diplomatic negotiations or government decisions, but rather by the balance of power on the ground.
He noted that the fighters—backed by broad popular support—have succeeded in imposing new rules of engagement that affirm the resistance’s right to self-defense and reshape the military and political balance on the ground.
He also addressed several additional points, which are presented in the following interview:
Q1: Following a series of repeated Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement, Hezbollah’s latest field response appears to have reshuffled the cards. How do you interpret the military message the resistance sought to deliver domestically and internationally? Are we now witnessing a phase of “establishing new rules of engagement” imposed by battlefield dynamics rather than negotiation tables?
In reality, what Hezbollah has done is a response to ongoing Zionist aggression that has persisted for nearly fifteen months. During this period, the resistance exercised what could be described as strategic patience, repeatedly stressing that patience has its limits.
Hezbollah allowed space for diplomacy—for the government in Lebanon, for internal dialogue among the Lebanese, and for what was described as the international community—to pursue negotiations, flexibility, and diplomatic engagement.
However, these efforts proved fruitless. The Israeli enemy continued its actions, carrying out assassinations of civilians, with the number of victims approaching 500 martyrs, alongside continuous destruction and daily bombardment targeting the Bekaa Valley and southern Lebanon.
At the same time, there was what the speaker describes as a clear failure by the government and an evident inability on the part of the Lebanese state to address the situation.
As a result, the resistance—after what he described as a fifteen-month period of restraint—returned to its original role: legitimate resistance against Israeli occupation.
According to this view, that legitimacy stems from the inherent right of self-defense under international law, particularly Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which grants peoples the right to defend themselves.
In addition, reference is made to Lebanese legal and political frameworks such as the Taif Agreement, as well as the 2024 ceasefire arrangement, which—according to the argument presented—recognizes the right of both parties to defend themselves.
From this perspective, the resistance today considers itself fully entitled to defend itself and does not see the need to seek legitimacy from any government authority.
Instead, it aims to pull Lebanon out of what is described as a strategic impasse and to establish a new equation: the resistance remains active and steadfast, and any Israeli aggression will be met with a response.
The speaker also asserts that the resistance continues to operate with strong momentum. Its weapons and capabilities, he says, have been restored through determination and resolve at a very high level. He claims that more than 100,000 trained and motivated fighters are ready for confrontation with occupation forces.
According to his account, developments on the ground have already demonstrated this dynamic. In the early days of the confrontation and up to the present, 27 Israeli tanks have reportedly been destroyed.
He also claims that Hezbollah possesses missiles capable of reaching depths of 140 to 200 kilometers, extending as far as Ashkelon, in addition to hundreds of drones. Intense fighting has also taken place in several southern Lebanese towns, including Taybeh, Lebanon, Khiam, and Bint Jbeil.
Q2: The Lebanese government is facing sharp criticism over what has been described as its “timid diplomacy” toward blatant Israeli attacks. In your view, has the Lebanese state become incapable of protecting its sovereignty without the weapons of the resistance? And what explains the government’s failure to take a firm stance that would compel Israel to abide by the ceasefire terms?
Unfortunately, according to Dr. Mohammad Shams, the current government in Lebanon has proven unable to respond effectively to the ongoing Israeli aggression and attacks against the country.
He criticized statements made by the prime minister expressing a desire for peace with Israel, saying that such positions have not yielded any meaningful results and were ultimately rejected by the Israeli side.
Shams also claimed that the government had proposed an initiative that included recognition of the Israeli entity as part of a broader agreement, but said that the proposal was rejected both by Israel and by Hezbollah, which dismissed it outright.
According to his assessment, the resistance is now engaged in active military operations and will not accept a ceasefire without concrete guarantees—particularly guarantees capable of deterring Israel from continuing airstrikes and attacks against Lebanese territory and civilians.
Shams argued that the Lebanese government has demonstrated clear weakness and failure in dealing with the situation, accusing it of aligning politically with Israel.
He also criticized the country’s foreign minister, whom he associated with the Lebanese Forces party, describing it as closely aligned with U.S. political currents in Lebanon and calling for a change in the ministerial leadership.
He added that discussions are increasingly emerging about the possibility of replacing the government altogether, arguing that it no longer reflects the aspirations of the Lebanese people.
According to Shams, the government has failed to compel Israel to respect the ceasefire, has been unable to facilitate reconstruction efforts, and has instead focused on pressuring the resistance and attempting to undermine its legitimacy.
He concluded by stating that the legitimacy of the resistance, in his view, does not derive from government approval or official statements but from what he describes as the broader struggle against Israeli occupation.
Q3: At a time when Hezbollah’s fighters are engaged in direct confrontations to repel Israeli attacks, domestic calls for disarmament are intensifying. How can these political demands be reconciled with the realities on the ground, where many Lebanese view the resistance’s weapons as the only guarantee against violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty?
According to Dr. Mohammad Shams, raising the issue of disarming the resistance while Lebanon is facing ongoing Israeli attacks is highly controversial and, in his view, disconnected from the current realities of the conflict.
He argues that, given what he describes as continued Israeli incursions and military pressure from Israel, the presence of the resistance remains a central element in defending Lebanese territory.
Shams maintains that calls to strip the resistance of its weapons effectively align with Israeli demands, asserting that such proposals fail to account for the military balance on the ground and the widespread support the resistance enjoys among segments of the Lebanese population.
He further argues that it would be unrealistic for the Lebanese state to place itself in a position where the Lebanese Armed Forces might be pushed into confrontation with Hezbollah and large parts of the Lebanese public. According to his assessment, a significant portion of society continues to view the resistance as a legitimate force defending the country.
At the same time, Shams criticizes certain political factions within the Lebanese government, accusing them of aligning with U.S. positions and Israeli demands.
For this reason, he reiterates his call for political change within the government, arguing that its current policies no longer reflect the aspirations of many Lebanese citizens and that it has taken positions hostile to what he describes as Lebanon’s legitimate resistance.
Q4: Despite the scale of sacrifices and displacement, the popular base supporting the resistance remains strongly present. In your view, what drives the Lebanese people to rally around the resistance?
A: According to Dr. Mohammad Shams, what is currently being witnessed is a broad and growing popular support base for the resistance in Lebanon.
He notes that many displaced civilians openly express their willingness to endure severe hardships—losing their homes, facing destruction, offering martyrs, and living through harsh conditions of displacement—yet still refuse the idea that the resistance should surrender its weapons or halt its activities.
Shams explains that a strong sentiment exists among large segments of the Lebanese population—particularly in southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and the southern suburbs of Beirut—that the resistance must continue its role in defending the country, reclaiming rights, and deterring further Israeli violations by Israel.
He adds that many supporters believe a firm deterrence equation must be maintained—one capable of imposing costs on Israel and preventing further attacks. According to Shams, this explains the strong bond between the public and the resistance, represented by Hezbollah.
He also notes that during the period in which the resistance exercised what he described as “strategic patience” for about fifteen months, some within the popular base even criticized that restraint, urging the resistance to move forward and resume active confrontation while reaffirming their continued support.
Q5: After a year of restraint in the face of Israeli attacks and enduring heavy sacrifices within the ranks of the resistance, the resistance has returned to the battlefield with renewed determination and momentum. In your view, did Israeli estimates—along with those of some internal actors—miscalculate by betting on the collapse of the resistance?
A: Dr. Mohammad Shams argues that media campaigns—what he describes as American, Israeli, and some Gulf-backed propaganda, including certain Lebanese channels funded by Saudi and other Gulf sources—attempted to convince both the Lebanese public and the wider Arab world that the resistance had collapsed and that Hezbollah had come to an end.
According to Shams, these narratives misread both the structure of Hezbollah and the depth of its popular support in Lebanon. He maintains that during the period he described as “strategic patience,” the group was reorganizing, rebuilding its capabilities, and preparing for a future confrontation.
He claims that the renewed military engagement surprised multiple parties—including Israel, the Lebanese government, and the United States—arguing that Hezbollah has demonstrated continued strength and operational capacity.
Shams further contends that Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had presented the situation to Israeli society as though Hezbollah had been neutralized, while recent developments on the ground—according to his account—show continued fighting even in areas near and south of the Litani River.
He concludes that Hezbollah, in his view, pursued a dual strategy: maintaining openness to diplomatic efforts and calls for de-escalation while preserving its readiness for armed resistance.
However, he argues that diplomacy and government initiatives ultimately failed, which—according to his assessment—has led to growing calls for political change within the Lebanese government.
Q6: Based on the current developments, do you believe that the framework of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is still viable in its original form, or have the recent direct clashes and the renewed missile activity of the resistance imposed a new political reality that goes beyond previous written understandings?
A: According to Dr. Mohammad Shams, the resistance currently views the battlefield as the decisive factor in shaping the next phase of the conflict. He argues that there can be no sustainable ceasefire unless Israel fully adheres to the terms of previous agreements related to Lebanon.
Shams outlined several conditions that he says represent core principles for the resistance, represented by Hezbollah:
- A full and genuine ceasefire, including an end to violations and military attacks against Lebanese territory.
- An end to Israeli freedom of military operations across Lebanon’s land, sea, and airspace.
- The safe return of displaced residents from southern Lebanon to their frontline and border villages.
- The immediate start of reconstruction efforts without political conditions attached.
According to Shams, these four points constitute fixed principles for the resistance and will not be abandoned, emphasizing that the outcome of the situation will ultimately be determined by developments on the ground rather than diplomatic texts alone.
