No doubt historians will view November 3 as a symbolic shift in global order and geopolitical power balance.
We have been conditioned to seeing what time it is in London, New York or Singapore regularly featured on TV screens and news websites.
On November 3 it was Beirut time that mattered most to global decision-makers and millions of others worldwide.
Internationally, it was understood that the awaited speech of General Secretary of Hizbullah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah will determine the immediate future of not just West Asia but the entire world.
Since the recent escalation in armed clashes in Palestine, parties directly or indirectly involved in the conflict realized immediately that Hizbullah’s decision about its level of engagement is one of the biggest challenges facing apartheid Israel.
Israel and its western enablers assumed that Hizbullah chief’s speech will provide them with a clear answer on what the movement is planning to do.
It did not.
In war, one does not disclose one’s plans.
Seyyed Nasrallah’s speech must have disappointed those who expected him to announce a full-scale counter offensive to liberate Palestine.
Sophisticated resistance movements do not base their decisions on emotions or societal fads.
No doubt the speech was also a huge disappointment to officials of apartheid Israel and its western backers.
It clearly indicated that Hizbullah still retains the option of full-scale escalation and will not rule it out under any circumstances.
In his speech Seyyed Nasrallah stated that “all possibilities on our Lebanese front are open and all options are on the table, and we could resort to them at any time… We must all be ready for any scenarios that may arise.”
This factor will continue to exert political and logistical pressure on Israel and its western enablers.
While the content of Hizbullah chief’s speech carries significant weight, its symbolism is even more important.
For the first time in many years, it is decisions taken in West Asia which determined and will determine the course of important events in future.
When Palestinians launched their military operation on Israel last month, it was clear that they understood the repercussions it will have.
They had likely prepared for them at the political, military, and logistic levels.
This phenomenon was pointed out by a prominent Belgian regional expert Elijah J. Magnier during several interviews with Al Jazeera.
According to Magnier, Israel is in a reactive mode, while the Palestinian resistance is the one framing the wider military and political battle.
The ongoing genocide in Gaza, missiles launched by Yemen on Israel and operations conducted by the Iraqi resistance groups against US forces, combined with the uncertainty further reinforced by Seyyed Nasrallah’s speech, means that the zionist regime will remain on edge for a long time.
What are its broader implications?
Israel is not a normal entity.
It only survives because of immense financial, military, and political support provided by western regimes.
Israel is a subsidized entity.
It cannot survive as a functioning state if it has to endure hostilities for a prolonged period.
This is particularly true in the current conflict as it is unlike anything Israel has previously faced.
This brings us to the key question: what is the major takeaway from Seyyed Nasrallah’s speech?
While there are several important takeaways, one requires a particular focus.
The Hizbullah chief made clear that it is the decision of the Resistance Axis which will determine how the ongoing war in Palestine evolves.
If Hizbullah chooses to escalate, as it is already doing regularly, no non-regional power or local US surrogate can prevent the situation from unfolding in a way unfavorable to Israel and the US.
This is a political defeat for Israel and the US.
Americans and their “mighty” Israel are now political prisoners of decisions made by their adversaries.
They no longer have the monopoly on forceful measures and political framing of major events.