But what is the reality behind this inverted doctrine they are trying to implant in the mind of the...

They are attempting to condition public opinion to believe that battles are decided at negotiating tables rather than in the trenches, and that diplomacy is the savior.

This is a complete inversion of history and of the Resistance Axis’ actual methodology.

Consider the experiences and their outcomes.

The Resistance has historically strengthened its position on the battlefield first, and diplomacy came afterward to consolidate and preserve those gains — never the other way around.

This was clearly demonstrated in Iraq in 2012, when US forces were driven out following Resistance attacks that preceded any negotiations. It was likewise evident in Lebanon in 2006, when the battlefield established the rules first, and negotiators subsequently came to formalize the equations of steadfastness.

Therefore, when figures such as al-Amiri, Qalibaf, or others attempt to reverse this equation and portray the political process as the mechanism that produces victory, they are perpetuating a strategic disaster: placing the hopes of an entire nation on the mirage of deceptive negotiations.

Placing one’s hopes in illusory understandings and “deals with the devil” amid the blood of innocent people is precisely one of the principal sources of our greatest failures.

And to be absolutely clear: we are not categorizing these figures as traitors or agents, like those who conduct disgraceful negotiations with Israel, for example. But this distinction must not blind us to reality.

Their role was never supposed to be more than that of “intermediaries” between the Resistance Axis and the opposing side. Yet they became entangled in exaggerating their own roles and portraying themselves as far more important than they actually were.

That is precisely where they fell into failure.

They were never required to assume the role of battlefield heroes or to create its equations. Their actual — and properly limited — role was always nothing more than carrying messages and consolidating what the blood shed on the battlefield had already achieved.

The battlefield alone writes the endings.

And whoever ties the destiny of his nation to negotiators’ papers — or grants negotiators a weight greater than their actual weight — is writing the page of defeat with his own hands.