Ansarollah Website Official Report
Published: 22 Ramadan 1447 AH

Monday witnessed the deepest strategic strike in the history of the confrontation—at Wadi Ella—then Tuesday, March 10, 2026, was recorded in military history as the day of the “Battle of Khiam,” a defining confrontation marked by the destruction of the Israeli Merkava tank myth at the hands of fighters from the Islamic Resistance.

On that day, military operations evolved into a complex and integrated battle that combined carefully prepared ground ambushes, sophisticated tactical luring operations, and deep strikes that reached the outskirts of Tel Aviv for the second time. The resistance also targeted the deepest point yet struck in the Galilee (Samson Base west of Tiberias) indicating that the confrontation with the Israeli enemy had transformed into an open front with all possibilities on the table, while Zionist enemy forces found themselves trapped in a cycle of fire and blood.

This report analyzes 30 military statements, focusing on the central developments of the Battle of Khiam. It reveals—through admissions from Zionist enemy sources—the scale of the losses suffered by armored and elite units, while outlining the contours of a new phase in the conflict.

The Battle of Khiam: A Model of the Multi-Layered Ambush and the Destruction of Three Merkava Tanks

The operations carried out at dawn on Tuesday on the southern outskirts of the city of Khiam (Statements 11 and 12) represented the peak of tactical military skill demonstrated by the resistance and a model example of attrition warfare management.

The First Ambush: Luring Israeli Forces into the “Death Zone”

The battle began at 02:30 a.m., when resistance fighters confronted an Israeli enemy attempt to advance near the Khiam detention center. Rather than merely repelling the attack, the fighters inflicted confirmed damage on two Merkava tanks, one of which was reportedly seen burning.

This dual strike at the outset of the battle placed the advancing force in a severe dilemma: how to withdraw while leaving wounded and dead inside burning armored vehicles.

The Second Ambush: Targeting Israeli Evacuation Forces

Here, according to the report, the tactical ingenuity became apparent. When Israeli enemy forces attempted to retrieve the damaged tanks, resistance fighters targeted the evacuation units with appropriate weapons.

The objective, the report states, was not merely the destruction of tanks but turning the evacuation effort itself into another ambush. Fierce clashes continued with the advancing forces, deepening confusion within Zionist ranks.

The Third Ambush: The Third Tank Becomes the Target

At 02:45 a.m., at the peak of the confrontation, fighters lured Zionist enemy troops into another tightly prepared ambush as they attempted to retrieve casualties from the battlefield. Upon reaching the designated killing zone, resistance fighters struck again, achieving a direct hit on a third Merkava tank, which was also seen burning.

According to the report, this scenario carried several implications for the Zionist enemy military:

• Collapse of the “leave no wounded behind” concept: Israeli enemy doctrine prioritizes the recovery of wounded and fallen soldiers. The resistance exploited this principle as a vulnerability, turning evacuation attempts into additional ambush opportunities.

• Complete fire dominance: Destroying three advanced tanks within less than an hour suggests the use of modern anti-armor weapons and a high level of maneuvering capability, concealment, and retargeting by the resistance.

• Control of the battlefield: The continued intensity of clashes around Khiam indicates, that the area remained outside Zionist enemy control and that resistance forces maintained operational dominance there.

Zionist enmey media outlets were unable to conceal the scale of the incident. The military correspondent for Channel 15 reported that “a tank targeted by Hezbollah in the Ramim Ridge area caught fire,” while "Yedioth Ahronoth" acknowledged that a Merkava tank had sustained damage after being hit by an anti-tank missile near Margaliot. However, the reality exceeded these brief acknowledgments, the burning of three tanks in a single night as the largest armored loss suffered by the Israeli enemy on a single front since the October War of 1973.

The Burning Border Front: A Night of Fire from Khiam to Aitaroun

The Battle of Khiam was not an isolated event but part of a broader night of intense fighting along the border with occupied Palestine.

Aitaroun: A Continuous Theater of Clashes

Operations began before midnight with attacks on Zionist enemy troop gatherings in Markaba (Statement 3), followed by strikes in Al-Malikiya and Jabal Al-Bat in Aitaroun (Statements 5 and 6).

At 01:15 a.m., artillery fire targeted the Al-Khanouq area (Statement 7). By 10:00 p.m., a new advancing force was detected heading toward the same area and was again shelled before direct clashes occurred (Statement 30).

This sequence indicates that Aitaroun remained under fire for approximately 22 continuous hours, reflecting a significant Israeli enemy failure to achieve any meaningful advance.

Markaba, Houla, and Maroun al-Ras

Strikes were also reported against:

• Kahil Hill in Maroun al-Ras (Statement 8)

• Yiftah Barracks (Statement 9)

• An artillery position near Al-Marj site (Statement 10)

• Artillery batteries near Al-Abbad (Statement 13)

• An infiltrating force heading toward Houla (Statement 14)

Later, the Al-Abbad site was struck again with specialized rockets (Statement 27).

Together, these actions formed an interconnected fire network that transformed every point on the border has turned into a relentless hell.

Deep Strikes: Expanding the Fire Zone to Tiberias

Resistance forces continued targeting deeper Zionist enemy positions with a noticeable geographic expansion and a focus on strategic targets.

"Samson Base" (Statement 16)

The strike on Samson Base west of the Sea of Galilee using attack drones represented the deepest reach achieved by the resistance so far. The base serves as a command and logistical preparation center. The ability of drones to reach this location, demonstrates that no area in the Galilee or occupied Golan can be considered entirely secure.

"Tel Hashomer Base" (Statement 2)

For the second time, attack drones targeted a headquarters complex near "Tel Aviv", reinforcing that the equation “Tel Aviv is in the line of fire” has become a battlefield reality, as the enemy, who thought that Saturday’s strikes were an exception, was surprised by their repetition after only 48 hours.

Targeting Air Defense Systems

Other strikes included:

• "Giva" drone control base east of Safed (Statement 4)

• "Mishmar HaCarmel" missile defense site south of Haifa (Statement 25)

These operations indicate a broader strategy aimed at blinding Zionist enemy defenses and reducing their ability to intercept drones and missiles.

Military Industry Targets

Trgeting the "Yodifat Military Industries Company" southeast of Aka was  (Statement 22), is a continuation of the policy of striking military production centers, to weaken the enemy's ability to sustain the war.

Israeli Admissions: The Collapse of the Perception of Hezbollah

Zionist enemy media reactions, went beyond simple news coverage and reflected a deeper crisis in perception.

"Yedioth Ahronoth" acknowledged that “Hezbollah is far from being the fragmented and weak organization it was once portrayed to be.”

This admission is the culmination of recent days. The enemy was living under the illusion that assassinating leaders and damaging the arsenal would mean the end of Hezbollah. However, recent events have proven that this organization possesses a resilient infrastructure, the ability to regenerate its capabilities, and an unwavering fighting determination. To say that it is "a religious organization that does not hesitate to use any means and is not afraid of a high number of casualties" is an admission of failure to understand the nature of the adversary, as was the case with Hamas before October 7th.

The newspaper also warned that “the war will be long and exhausting,” signaling a shift from earlier promises of a quick victory. Discussions of occupying large areas and potentially fighting for months or years represent a nightmare scenario for Zionist settlers seeking security and stability.

Other indicators of battlefield pressure included:

• The injury of the head of the "Margaliot settlement"

• Wounding of two Zionist enemy soldiers and three others in separate incidents

• Closure of major roads in the Upper Galilee

These developments suggest that daily life in northern occupied Palestine has become increasingly difficult and that Zionist enemy authorities are struggling to protect settlements even near the border.

A Decisive Day on the Battlefield

Tuesday, March 10, 2026, is likely to remain in military memory as the day the Merkava myth collapsed, when resistance fighters demonstrated that even the most heavily armored vehicles could be destroyed by combatants skilled in ambush tactics and determined in their cause.

Several lessons emerge from that day:

• The Battle of Khiam as a tactical model: Military academies may study it as an example of exploiting enemy vulnerabilities—particularly the effort to evacuate casualties—to create lethal ambushes.

• Simultaneous pressure on multiple fronts: Coordinated attacks on border positions, deep targets, armored units, air defense systems, and military industries demonstrate the ability to distribute firepower across multiple battlefields simultaneously.

• The victory of will over technology: The Merkava is among the most advanced and expensive tanks in the world. Destroying three within hours illustrates that technology alone does not determine victory.

• Lebanon at the center of the equation: These operations are in defense of Lebanon, by deterring aggression, missiles and ambushes succeed in imposing a new equation that prevents the enemy from escalating its attacks.

In conclusion, March 10, 2026, marked a turning point in which the resistance moved from demonstrating its capabilities to imposing its will. According to the report’s assessment, it proved capable not only of inflicting damage on its adversary but also of destroying symbols of its military power and forcing it into a prolonged war of attrition under increasingly difficult conditions. This is the equation of true victory.