Afrasianet - Will the ceasefire understanding in Lebanon hold? Who won and who was defeated? What will Lebanon be like in the next phase? What does the attack on Aleppo have to do with the bigger picture in the region? As in the larger conflict? And how did analysts manipulate the public?

Whoever looks behind the live news and events sees historical transformations taking place before his eyes. The region has been in an earthquake since the seventh of October 2023.

The ceasefire agreement in Lebanon represents a point of balance between a set of factors:

- The Israeli war has reached its peak of brutality, and the resistance has begun to escalate its precision field strikes more effectively than previous weeks and months, especially specific strikes (from Caesarea to the day of the 450 marches and rockets a few days before the ceasefire).

- A real failure in ground entry in the first weeks, and the crystallization of the idea that insisting on entering the Litani would cost a massacre in the Israeli army, with a long time span of anticipated events full of proven dangers.

- Netanyahu's internal calculations are complicated, with his attempt since the night of the fifth of November (the dismissal of Galant), to assemble all the playing cards in his hand, and his monopoly on the security achievements achieved in the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Operation Pager and the assassination of leaders, all of which he achieved despite the opposition of Washington and military and security officials in Israel. The picture turned inside with the start of the ground aggression against Lebanon, so that the bodies of soldiers and tanks began to pile up over his head. This has turned into a political-security war at home Foreshadows getting away.

- The issuance of the arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Galant by the International Criminal Court, which is not an ordinary detail in the scene. It is the breaking point of Netanyahu's political project, and it has future implications for the entity, and in particular, and most importantly, it was a signal from the dark administration society rooted in Washington and other capitals, which is above states and changes, that Netanyahu is not the maker of the game, but rather his role is limited by virtue of his position as head of government as an essential piece of the tools of world governance, not a ruler himself. And their position in the sense of Other: What matters is Israel, not Netanyahu.

- The Democrats and the deep state in America launched the counter-war against the Trump project, after the latter's landslide victory in the presidential elections, and the start of forming his administration from the hawks of confrontation with the current system. Thus, the intensification of the confrontation between the two sides led to their determination together to stop the war in Lebanon. How did the calculations of the current and future US administrations converge on stopping the war?

The Democrats, for their part, because they want to stop the war since February and devote themselves to shaping a solution that they believe is more sustainable in the region and benefits Israel in the long run, and they see Netanyahu as a hostile player in the US election and that he contributed to their loss. Trump, for his part, wants to start his term without imposed and side wars that distract him from the urgent necessities: eliminating the deep state, forming his alternative system, fighting the battle of the American economy, confronting China and its economic blockade, and stopping the Ukraine war...

- Biden and those behind him played the Trump administration's restriction card in Ukraine. These people want to continue the war there, and drown the owner of the new system (which he is looking forward to) in the war of the old system, and this restriction will lead, according to their view, to prevent him from stopping the war, which will have reached the point of no return, and thus will forcibly adopt a foreign policy towards Russia close to Biden's policy, and thus serve the military manufacturing complex and the deep state and the ramifications of their interests. But how did Biden do it?

- Biden (along with European countries) allowed Ukraine to strike the Russian depth with long-range missiles, which prompted Russia to start implementing the new nuclear doctrine through its practical means, but without nuclear charges, and revealed the terrifying "Arisenik" missile. This is how this development pushed towards a new necessity: an immediate acceleration of the ceasefire in the Middle East, besieging the expansion of the conflict, and searching for another angle to pressure adversaries and achieve American goals, and this is what we will move to shortly in talking about the attack in the direction of Aleppo, after we complete the presentation of the factors of the ceasefire in Lebanon.

On  the Lebanese side, the steadfastness of the resistance fighters on the border was legendary, and it can be comfortably said that this type of fighters does not exist elsewhere in this land, and this fighting turned the hands of time and made it bite the Israeli side, instead of posing increasing pressure on the resistance, weakening its negotiating position. On the other hand, unbearably stressful conditions have formed inside Lebanon. The issue of displaced persons from the south, the Bekaa and the suburbs was putting strong pressure on the resistance and on the Lebanese negotiator. and contributed to it Local forces have gone so far as to openly hostility, raising fears of internal disintegration that could lead to an irreversible explosion at the heart of society. This is on the one hand.

On the other hand, Israel was bypassing the rules of engagement drawn by the field, and playing the brinkmanship game against everyone, by targeting the heart of Beirut, which prompted the resistance to activate the Beirut-Tel Aviv equation. But the horizon of this equation would have led to the zero-sum war we talked about, which is the war of the absolute victor and the absolute defeater. Since this war will be in its infancy, years of war would have passed before the conditions for a ceasefire were reached. This point was managed responsibly by the resistance, President Nabih Berri was able to create a space of common interest between the resistance, Washington and Paris. The impossible mission succeeded.

But what have the parties achieved from the agreement?

As for Israel, it has undoubtedly achieved the goal of creating the right conditions for the return of settlers to the north. From their perspective, the elite forces of the resistance were slightly removed from the Galilee, which can be marketed as a preventive achievement against repeating the October 7 scenario in the Gaza envelope.

Israel was also able to come up with a rhetoric of damaging Hezbollah's capabilities, assassinating its senior leaders, and forcing it to abide by Resolution 1701, a resolution that Israel itself has violated nearly 35,000 times since its issuance on August 12, 2006. In this context, it can say that it has separated the squares, but at this particular point, the position of the resistance is not embarrassing at all, why? This brings us to the achievements of the resistance:

In the end, the resistance prevented the occupation of the south again, the establishment of an occupied buffer zone, or the imposition of humiliating political conditions, and all it offered was a commitment to implement the resolution, which was issued after the war it won in July 2006. This also magnifies the value of the brilliant movement and the diplomatic masterpiece created by President Berri, when he insisted that the agreement be limited to the implementation mechanism of the resolution, without additions to it, or the issuance of a new resolution by the Security Council, which would have carried different conditions. A labor of rivalry between the five permanent members, and its duration extends to an indefinite time.

The resistance maintained its loyalty to the headlines it raised in support of the Palestinian people, and presented to the world its leaders, fighters, resources, homes and suffering, and pressured the Israeli army, draining a large part of its capabilities on the northern front, until it received in recent months the major fireball in its chest, while the frequency of its fire on Gaza decreased, but with the occupation's insistence on the war of extermination.

This option undermined the sectarian accusations made against the Lebanese resistance, and brought it out in harmony with its project and discourse towards Palestine and the issues of the nation, and sincere in paying the price, which was very large.

How did the balance come to this point?

The Lebanese negotiator picked up these data, along with the two mediators, the United States and France, and from a deeper point Iran, to stop the fighting before sliding to the point of zero war, so that we would be facing an absolute victory or defeat, knowing - on the one hand - that this point is very far away in time, and fraught with uncertain risks, and on the other hand because the region is unable to receive the repercussions of a global conflict at the expense of its peoples and countries.

Will the agreement hold?

Here we come to the answer to the question of victory and defeat, which explains the uncertainty on both sides, as everyone in Israel accuses Netanyahu of retreat and defeat in front of the resistance, while, on the Lebanese side, media forces and campaigns accuse the resistance of exaggerating the image of victory in parallel with the cost and losses that occurred in Lebanon.

The answer is that there was no direct defeat on both sides, or a crushing victory for the owners or occupiers.

What happened is a sufficient balance point to stop the war, so that each side views the agreement as achieving the acceptable limit of its goals. This is a direct result, what about the strategic result?

In the strategic term, looking at the big picture, and the image of Israel in the world today, suffices to say that it suffered the greatest defeat in its history. Although the outcome of the war restricts the resistance in its movement, the latter is nothing but a societal reaction to the occupation. Therefore, its movement in this context has the flexibility to calm down to the point of freezing and return to activity to the point of flare-up, if the occupation returns.

Israel's defeat, at this level, affects its distant chances of survival in the form it has done with its allies for 70 years, which has now fallen by a knockout blow, and the ICC decision is only the beginning and manifestation of that.

The war game on Lebanon is over, and I imagine that the agreement is solid and will hold, but the new big game continues. This brings us to the sudden events of Aleppo.

Damascus has conducted a cautious policy in recent months, and has not been drawn into intervening forcefully in the ongoing war, out of an understanding of the very delicate strategic circumstance. From the perspective of political science, it can be said that it is an advanced management of national security necessities at a very dangerous and sensitive moment.

But Syria, even with its strategic cooling, has received a large part of the blows in the context of Netanyahu's brutality in the region. With the cessation of fire in Lebanon, it remains a strategic knot and an exceptional piece in the picture for all players. So what happened?

A range of interests intersected in northern Syria, and at this very moment.

First, armed groups have benefited from the tactics of the Gaza, Lebanon, and Ukraine wars, and this is evident in the attack tactics.

Second, providing the groups with resources is due to an American will to pressure Syria for the benefit of the United States and Israel.

The first goal is to force Damascus to separate the squares and cut off the supply routes for the resistance movements in every direction, as Syria is the node of roads in this path.

Israel, along with America, wants a dramatic shift in Syria's choice toward the relationship with Iran and the Axis.

Third, Turkey, for its part, (which is the door of supplies to the groups and their geographical depth), wants to put pressure on Syria, whose president refused to meet with the Turkish president before the conditions of its request for Assad, and related to regional sovereignty, were met before this meeting took place.

Fourth, Ukraine wants to put pressure on the Russian presence in Syria, and Ukrainian armaments on the front seemed to be effective and effective.

Fifth, they all want to pressure Iran and Syria together to separate the tracks, and pressure on another growing track between Tehran and Moscow, which explains the important contact today between the foreign ministers of the two countries, Lavrov and Araqchi, during which they confirmed the unity of view of this shift on the territory, and discussed ways to confront it.

In Syria and the events in Aleppo, there is something linked to the global geopolitical conflict. The role required of Syria, from Washington and the West, is very different from its current position. Assad's speech in Riyadh expressed a sharp choice commitment against Israel, which explains opposition to a shift in the direction of what Washington also wants from conflict with China.

The northern region of Syria is China's main passage to the Mediterranean, under the greater Belt and Road project. If the Belt and Road are separated from the city of Qingdao, on China's east coast, they meet at no point until they reach the waters of the Mediterranean.

How? What is the relationship between the ports of Beirut, Haifa and Latakia?

In previous years, the port of Beirut was hit by a huge and horrific explosion, but it remained mysterious, and the accusations about it fall short of explaining what happened. There is no explanation other than geopolitical calculations, capable of fulfilling the logic of this event.

The port was out of service as a strategic terminal for major projects. This was accompanied by media and political campaigns. Without going into detail, it ultimately prevented China from setting foot in Lebanon and starting from there to rebuild Syria.

I cut off a Chinese foot here. But a bigger event happened simultaneously, and nearby.

The United States intervened with Israel, keeping China away from the port of Haifa as well. Thus, another Chinese foot was cut off, and a supposed new Belt and Road artery.

The port of Latakia remained. In the grand calculations, too, Syria falls within the area of Russian strategic influence. Russia has been busy for years fighting play at the heart of its society, Ukraine. It is trying to ward off an imminent and urgent danger.

Damascus has regained much of the territory it lost 12 years ago, but critical areas remain outside state authority. At the Jordanian border, America stands, in the east also at the oil sources – as usual – and in the northeast the Syrian Democratic Forces, and deep in their view of the historical Kurdish dream. But the northern region adjacent to the border with Turkey is something else.

To the south of this region, the M4 road, once seen as the Syrian link, runs from the Chinese project. In contrast, a rival American-Indian project is active and wants to destroy the chances of the former.

The current offensive towards Aleppo threatens all of this, in its penultimate point. It threatens Russia on the Mediterranean, so my perception is that it is pressure in the direction of shifting the Syrian position, not overthrowing it. This casts doubt on the political horizon of those launching the attack today.

They are under the threat of any small change in the scene, on the part of Damascus and Iran on the one hand, if they decide to give priority to flexibility, but more seriously, it puts them at the mercy of a slight deviation from Erdogan, which will cause them a massacre.

But what does this mean for the U.S.-China conflict in the region?

China entered the region through the economy, engaging with the Gulf Cooperation Council (especially Saudi Arabia) and Iran, and sponsoring the historic agreement between Tehran and Riyadh.

That led to a bold Saudi move in growing economic cooperation with China. But that's not all China wants.

The Gulf region remains the most important region for energy production, and preventing China from it will lose the energy resources necessary for its conflict with Washington. Any deprivation of this source would mean a severe blow to the Chinese economy.

This leads to the fact that China and Russia are fully concerned about what is happening in Aleppo, which may be reflected in the Syrian counteroffensive, which I believe will show a completely different armament and unprecedented communication capabilities. But it may be a long issue and this event does not end anytime soon.

The area between Iran and Palestine is boiling, the southern geopolitical boundary of Russia's national security, and a life-or-death zone for China's project in the direction of Europe and Africa.

Therefore, Lebanon's exit with this agreement now is a political miracle.

During the war, a group of analysts (with the exception of those who wanted to maintain caution to protect people from underestimating safety measures and not to drift in excessive optimism) was the leader of the war, who practiced "negative publishing" as a method of attracting attention, turning the conversation in the field of political science into a "talk" and a fish market for bidding, and a platform for the Kalmangi floating on the surface of events, swinging back and forth with news and forecasting.

It is a farce that has turned into a tool of pressure and psychological warfare on our people every day.

Passive publishers committed a crime during this war, knowingly, selfishly or ignorantly, and some of them have a long history in the media or in  the "leak press" that lives on information, so the leaker turns into a media manipulator, who in turn manipulates the morale of the public, and gets their attention, their open eyes and their tight mouths.

The negative publication in recent weeks centered on spreading intimidation, in the form of analysis, that the war will be prolonged until next spring, and some of them said for a year and two, and that this will be the permanent case!