Ansarollah Website. Report | Mohammed Nasser Hatroush
The Zionist entity and its American ally appear to be operating under the illusion that they can isolate Hezbollah by intensifying military attacks and confining the confrontation to the Lebanese front, in an attempt to separate the interconnected fronts of the Axis of Resistance and dismantle the doctrine of the "unity of arenas."
However, Iran’s resolute response, followed by a Yemeni strike targeting the heart of the Zionist entity, has significantly undermined this approach and pressured Israel to rein in its escalation after realizing the difficulty of isolating one front from the others.
Military experts believe that the Iranian and Yemeni military operations have imposed a new reality on the battlefield, forcing both the Zionist entity and the United States to carefully reconsider their calculations amid growing indications that any further hostile action could produce adverse consequences for the aggressors and pave the way for a wider regional confrontation.
In this context, military expert Brig. Gen. Mujeeb Shamsan affirmed that the intervention of the Yemeni Armed Forces and their announcement of a comprehensive blockade on Israeli maritime navigation, including the closure of transit routes for vessels linked to the Zionist entity through the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, will have far-reaching repercussions for Israel.
This comes particularly as Iran has imposed restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz on vessels associated with the United States and parties involved in the aggression against Iran, in addition to attacks that have targeted several American facilities across the region.
Speaking exclusively to Ansarallah’s website, Brig. Gen. Shamsan said these developments make the impact of closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait considerably greater than during previous phases of Yemen’s support operations for Gaza.
He pointed to efforts by countries allied with, or having normalized relations with, the Zionist entity—such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia—to mitigate the effects of the Yemeni blockade through a land corridor extending from the UAE across Saudi Arabia and Jordan to the occupied Palestinian territories.
He further noted that developments related to the war on Iran, Iran’s retaliatory response, and the resulting repercussions for certain regional actors will substantially increase the pressure generated by the blockade on the Zionist entity, particularly as it coincides with restrictions affecting the Strait of Hormuz, rising energy prices, and mounting strain on the global economy.
Shamsan also indicated that the move to impose a blockade on the Zionist entity at the Bab al-Mandab Strait signals the potential for further escalation should U.S. aggression against Lebanon, Palestine, and Iran continue. He added that such escalation could eventually extend to the imposition of restrictions on American vessels operating in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
He explained that these developments stem from the view that the Zionist entity and the United States constitute a single camp, a perception that helps explain the nature of Yemen’s actions within the Axis of Resistance.
He stressed that Yemen’s support operations for Gaza in recent periods have produced significant effects, including economic repercussions and disruptions to supply chains upon which the Zionist entity heavily depends, particularly given its reliance on maritime transport through the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, one of the shortest and most strategically important shipping routes available to Israel.
Impact of Yemen’s Support Operations
Brig. Gen. Mujeeb Shamsan stressed that the cumulative effect of these operations—from 2023 through 2024 and into the end of 2025, coupled with the renewed Yemeni decision amid current developments—will generate significant and steadily increasing repercussions for the Zionist entity, both economically and strategically.
He noted that key maritime chokepoints have evolved into strategic instruments of pressure against the Zionist entity and the United States within the framework of a broader regional conflict.
He added that these shifts will also have implications for the global economy and are likely to place additional pressure on the United States, which has long portrayed itself as the guarantor of international maritime security.
Concluding his remarks, Brig. Gen. Shamsan emphasized that the Zionist entity is facing a growing dilemma in its military options regarding the Yemeni front. He pointed to challenges stemming from limited intelligence capabilities and geographic constraints, alongside the continued development of Yemen’s defensive capabilities.
These factors, he said, have further complicated the situation and are pushing Israel to seek alternative courses of action, including attempts to activate its instruments and proxies from within.
Reinforcing the "Unity of Arenas" Doctrine
For his part, Yemeni military expert Brig. Gen. Abdulghani Al-Zubaidi asserted that Yemen’s response has been both powerful and consequential, particularly in terms of its timing, significance, and scale. He noted that the move involved a volley of missile launches in addition to the closure of the Bab al-Mandab Strait to Israeli shipping.
Speaking exclusively to Ansarallah’s website, Al-Zubaidi explained that the development sends a clear message that Yemen is an integral part of this battle and of the broader effort that underscores the unity of the resistance fronts. He added that this message has now become more evident than ever.
He pointed out that the Israeli side has reacted to these developments with a degree of surprise and astonishment, as the Yemeni intervention comes at a moment laden with political and geopolitical significance for the region. According to Al-Zubaidi, this confirms that Yemen has become a key component of this broader equation aimed at confronting Israeli arrogance and hegemonic behavior.
He further noted that the entry of the Yemeni Armed Forces into the confrontation places Israel in a difficult predicament, particularly given the significance of the timing of this intervention, which caught the Israeli side off guard through both the missile launches and the closure of the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
According to Al-Zubaidi, these developments come at a time when Israel is still grappling with the repercussions of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, as well as the previous closure of the strait to Israeli commercial shipping, further compounding the challenges it faces.
Tehran Reasserts Its Presence Through Firepower
The significance of Iran’s response to the U.S.-Israeli attacks lies in the message it delivered to the Zionist entity: that the Islamic Republic remains at the height of its strength and that the American and Israeli assaults failed to destroy its military capabilities, contrary to what its adversaries had hoped.
Through its military response, Tehran demonstrated that it remains a powerful force—not only in defending itself, but also in defending its allies across the region—while reaffirming that the principle of the "unity of arenas" remains a red line that cannot be compromised.
Commenting on the issue, Lebanese military expert Brig. Gen. Nidal Zahwi said the missile barrages launched from Tehran and various locations across Iranian territory were intended to disperse the Zionist entity’s defensive efforts.
He stressed that the missiles have indeed reached deep inside Israel and constitute a direct response to previous Iranian warnings, particularly in the context of protecting Beirut’s southern suburbs.
In remarks to Ansarallah’s website, Zahwi explained that the strikes also fall within the framework of support for the southern suburbs, which he described as a pivotal focal point in consolidating the unity of the resistance fronts at the strategic level.
He noted that this consolidation not only disrupts and undermines Israeli defensive calculations, but also strengthens the position of the Lebanese resistance.
According to Zahwi, this enhanced position carries implications on multiple levels, whether in relations with regional states or in the course of ongoing negotiations between Lebanon and the Zionist entity in Washington. He emphasized that these developments are unfolding at an exceptionally delicate and sensitive stage.
He further noted that the concept of unified fronts extends beyond the Lebanese arena to include the Yemeni front, which also carries significant strategic weight, particularly following Yemen’s declaration that the Red Sea is closed to Israeli shipping and its assertion that such operations are likely to intensify.
Zahwi said this escalation means that the Bab al-Mandab Strait could be closed at any moment should Israeli aggression continue. Such a scenario, he argued, would produce two major consequences: first, a worsening of the global economic crisis due to disruptions affecting a substantial portion of oil supply chains; and second, a direct impact on the American economy.
He added that the United States faces an additional challenge in the form of declining strategic petroleum reserves, according to data from the U.S. Treasury, necessitating efforts to replenish those reserves. This reality, he said, increases pressure on Washington to reach an agreement during this critical period.
Zahwi also pointed out that Iran and the Axis of Resistance have entered this equation with the conviction that the United States is unlikely to become directly involved in the conflict with ease, a factor that further complicates the position of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
He concluded that these developments are pushing Washington to approach the Lebanese file from a different perspective, arguing that the current course of negotiations is now tilting more in favor of the resistance than it was at the outset.
Potential Escalation Scenarios
Lebanese military expert Brig. Gen. Akram Serwi said the Zionist strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs was carried out in coordination with the United States, as publicly acknowledged by the Israeli enemy.
According to Serwi, the attack goes far beyond a limited military operation. Rather, it reflects a broader effort to establish a new deterrence equation linking Beirut to the settlements of northern occupied Palestine, while seeking to decouple the Lebanese and Iranian fronts and entrench Israel’s freedom of military action in southern Lebanon.
Speaking to Ansarallah’s website, Serwi explained that the move is intended to expand Israeli attacks on towns and villages across southern Lebanon without triggering retaliatory strikes by Hezbollah against occupied Palestinian territories—an arrangement the movement categorically rejects.
He said the occupation seeks to convey several messages through the attack, foremost among them its readiness to widen the scope of its operations, employ overwhelming force, and impose a heavy burden on the Lebanese population, particularly within the resistance’s popular support base.
The second message, he noted, is directed at the Lebanese state, urging it to fully implement the ceasefire agreement announced in Washington. Otherwise, "Israel" is prepared to intensify its military campaign, a trend reflected, he argued, in the direct targeting of the Lebanese Army.
Serwi added that the third message is aimed at Washington itself, with "Israel" seeking to reaffirm its insistence on preserving operational freedom despite the mounting domestic pressures facing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly after a phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly prevented the implementation of earlier threats to bombard Beirut.
He argued that Israeli forces are working to obstruct any potential agreement between the United States and Iran and are attempting to use the Lebanese arena to reignite the conflict without appearing to openly challenge Washington. Instead, he said, the objective is to provoke an Iranian response that could provide a pretext for renewed Israeli strikes against Iran, in line with Netanyahu’s desire to resume a war that ended contrary to his expectations.
Serwi further explained that the Zionist occupation is seeking to impose new realities that extend beyond the framework established following the October 2024 agreement. This includes pressuring the Lebanese state to prevent Hezbollah from launching attacks while allowing Israeli military operations to continue unchecked.
He also pointed to efforts to deploy the Lebanese Army in what he described as designated areas where resistance weapons would be confiscated under American and Israeli supervision.
Although the strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs was limited in scale, Serwi said its implications are substantial. In his view, it represents an attempt to impose new realities on the ground in favor of the Zionist entity, while simultaneously provoking a Hezbollah response that could be used to justify broader military operations, particularly amid Israeli frustration over the restrictions imposed by Trump.
He maintained that the Zionist entity is less interested in reaching a security arrangement with Lebanon than in imposing conditions that guarantee unrestricted military freedom, preserve its occupation of Lebanese territory, and tie any future withdrawal to the disarmament of Hezbollah—an outcome the movement firmly rejects, leaving the Lebanese state facing a highly complex dilemma.
In Serwi’s assessment, the strike amounts to a reversal of previous understandings and effectively returns negotiations to square one, amid rapidly evolving developments that include Iran’s entry into the confrontation through strikes that remain largely symbolic in scale, but could escalate if "Israel" continues targeting Beirut.
Concluding his remarks, Serwi described the current developments as a form of "negotiation through fire" between the United States and the occupying entity on one side, and Iran and Hezbollah on the other.
He warned that the faltering course of ongoing negotiations, coupled with American threats of a return to war, has opened the door to several possible scenarios, ranging from the continuation of limited strikes and a return to de-escalation, to a broader regional confrontation that could include attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure and a significant expansion of the conflict across the region.
