Ali al-taher Ridge
Jamil Al-Sayyed
Recently, Ali Al-Taher Ridge has become the focus of media statements and threats, to the point that it is being portrayed in the minds of Lebanese and foreign public opinion as though it were on the same strategic level as the Strait of Hormuz.
The reality, however, is that it is a fortified and complex military base near Nabatieh, established by the Resistance beneath the ridge, not on top of it. It has multiple interconnected entrances and exits. Israel has repeatedly bombed it from the air, while Israeli reconnaissance patrols infiltrated its elevated areas before withdrawing without attempting to storm the base.
Therefore, with the Israeli elections approaching in October, Netanyahu has been placing particular emphasis on this ridge, seeking to use it as a political trump card in what is expected to be a difficult election for him.
On the other side, recent Iranian statements through Qalibaf, in which he drew a “red line” around the ridge, have — in my view — been misplaced from a military perspective, further intensifying the rhetoric and tensions surrounding the issue.
So where do we stand in reality?
From a military perspective, and according to the concept of Resistance warfare, the military installation beneath Ali Al-Taher Ridge consists of a network of deep tunnels and fortifications designed to withstand airstrikes and airborne assaults.
As for its location, it is considered a relatively rear military base rather than a forward position directly on the border.
Consequently, its importance remains intact as long as there is no ground invasion, the enemy does not reach it, and it is unable to penetrate its fortifications, internal labyrinths, entrances and exits.
Therefore, according to both the concept of Resistance warfare and modern warfare, every defensive position — no matter how heavily fortified, including the underground Ali Al-Taher base — has a pre-existing plan for holding out against the enemy, as well as a plan for withdrawal and the destruction of the base behind them.
The purpose of the holding-out plan, militarily and operationally, is to confront the enemy and inflict the greatest possible losses.
The purpose of the withdrawal plan is to destroy the base once enemy forces enter it, while the Resistance fighters withdraw toward predetermined rear positions from which they can continue fighting.
Accordingly, anyone who imagines that fighting inside the underground base there would mean fighting to the point of suicide is completely mistaken when it comes to the principles of conventional warfare and Resistance warfare.
What takes place is combat endurance: either the enemy is forced to withdraw under the weight of its losses, or the Resistance falls back to rear positions from which it continues the fight.
Armies in war fight to win, or they conduct tactical withdrawals to return to the battlefield, or they are defeated and surrender.
Resistance movements, however, operate through attack and withdrawal, maneuver and surprise. They strike here and take losses there. And when they withdraw — or even disappear — it is often to regroup, rebuild their strength, and return from a direction the enemy does not expect.
Therefore, based on experience, I do not look at Ali Al-Taher Ridge, despite its importance, except from the military and combat perspective I have outlined above.
In other words, I believe the Resistance there is currently in the phase of its holding-out plan. No one can know when the withdrawal phase will begin except those Resistance fighters stationed inside that deep underground base beneath the ridge.
In short:
Holding out is combat. Withdrawal is a maneuver to return to combat from another position. Anyone who categorizes such a situation simply in terms of “victory” or “defeat” demonstrates ignorance of military science and its history.
Distorting Reality in Think Tanks Supporting Negotiations
TEHRAN
“Merely invoking ‘Ala al-Osoul’ would have been enough to bring down Ali Al-Taher!”
This is a tweet by political activist Alireza Mostoufi, who is close to the negotiating team and a supporter of the agreement. It alludes to the famous statement issued by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution after the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, which became known domestically as the
“Ala al-Osoul Statement.”
The statement read verbatim:
“In principle, I originally had a different opinion, but because of the commitment made by the respected president… to assume responsibility and grant the authorization, I gave permission for it.”
The tweet is one of dozens posted over the past two days by a group supporting the negotiations, under the pretext of reports suggesting that Ali Al-Taher could fall into Israeli hands in the coming hours.
This group is presenting an agreement that was never implemented even for a single hour — and which Trump himself described as
“just a piece of paper with no value”
— as the factor safeguarding Ali Al-Taher!
Completely ignored is an undeniable battlefield reality: during this very same period of negotiations, important areas south of the Litani were lost, including the historic Shqif Castle (Beaufort Castle) in Nabatieh.
Yet this reality is being entirely overlooked by this think tank.
What is even more astonishing is that, even after Trump’s repeated recent statements explicitly saying that the agreement is worth no more than the paper on which it is written, and that he does not care whether they sign a useless agreement, this camp not only refuses to acknowledge that it has once again fallen into the trap of negotiations — it has instead turned its accusations against the critics, going so far as to target Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution.
Such positions — in which the battlefield and whatever serves the battlefield have no place — expose a dangerous tendency emerging inside Iran.
It is not seeking to safeguard national interests. Rather, it appears aimed at settling political scores, theorizing future defeats, and shifting blame onto everyone who warned from the very beginning that the negotiations were a trap — one that Iranian officials were drawn into in order to reduce the catastrophic consequences of the war for those who launched it — the United States and Israel — provide them with an exit, and open the door to reckless Israeli expansion across the region.