The aftermath of Hizbullah's certain response to the assassination of Mughniyah may lead to a regional war that would end the Zionist project, writes Dyab Abou Jahjah* The assassination of Imad Mughniyah may mark the beginning of a new era in the region: an era of total confrontation with no boundaries and no taboos. The reaction of Hizbullah to the assassination of its military chief of staff was never going to be mild, and the Israelis knew that. They knew that the response would be painful and still they went for it. Did they believe that denying responsibility would confuse the resistance and prevent it from retaliating? Surely not; rather, they want the possibility of considering any Hizbullah strike as an unprovoked act of aggression. Hizbullah, however, is likely to respond using the same tactic; that is, hitting hard and not claiming responsibility. Indeed, any response to the assassination of Mughniyah can by no means be a classical response. The resistance cannot respond by launching missiles or firing on a tank. A proper response, from the perspective of the resistance, can only be to eliminate an Israeli personality of the same stature of Mughniyah. As Sayed Hassan Nasrallah pointed out in his latest speech, the rules of the game, which confined the Arab-Israeli confrontation to the spheres of Lebanese and occupied Palestinian territories, have been breached by the Israelis. In Nasrallah's words, "If you want this kind of open war, then let it be an open war." Killing Mughniyah does not necessary mean that Israel wants "this kind of open war", because the Zionists realise very well that Hizbullah has the logistical and organisational structure to hit them hard anywhere, and they are not overly keen on indulging in a bloody cycle of tit-for-tat assassinations. Hizbullah, for its part, is also not in favour of such a scenario, preferring to confine its activities to politics and classical resistance based on guerrilla tactics. However, when Israel killed Mughniyah in Syria it gave Hizbullah licence, as well as an imperative, to respond, at least once, outside of the usual frame of the conflict. That one hit is very likely to come in an Arab country, maybe a country that is known to support Mossad activities and even to lend the services of its own security apparatus to the Israelis regularly. After its response is executed, Hizbullah expects Israel to go back to the traditional rules of the conflict. This means that any reaction or retaliation for the loss that Israel will suffer -- and they as well as we know that this loss is coming -- will be a declaration of classical war whether limited or open. If the Israelis chose to opt for another assassination outside of Lebanon's borders, we could consider that we have entered a time of open war with the whole world as its theatre of operation. The options for Israel are very limited. They might launch another attack on Lebanon, but that will lead them to another defeat. Hizbullah is more powerful now than in July 2006, and as Nasrallah said in his recent speech, tens of thousands of well- trained and highly motivated warriors await prospective invaders. We should recall, also, that Nasrallah, who is proven credible in his assessments and predictions, has declared on previous occasions that the coming battle will witness a dramatic surprise that "will change the course of the whole conflict". This surprise could be double: on the one hand, the resistance may have acquired anti-aircraft missile systems capable of limiting Israel's air superiority (some reports have suggested that Hizbullah has acquired Sam 18 missiles through Syria from a former Soviet republic), and on the other, that the resistance would not only defend Lebanon but also enter into Palestine, liberate territory and defend it successfully. This would force Israel to desperate measures and perhaps lead to total war in the region implicating not only Syria and Iran but also Egypt. And this would obviously change the course of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Far from speculation, the coming exchange of blows between the Lebanese resistance and Israel will undoubtedly be a crucial turning point, establishing a balance of terror that no party is willing to breach or opening the way to the final chapter of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The latter would be the beginning of the end of the Zionist colonial project in the Arab east, if we believe what Nasrallah says. Until now, one must admit that this man, unlike his Israeli counterparts, is not known for empty rhetoric. * The writer is a Lebanese activist.
