In recent months, pages linked to the Axis of Resistance have grown on social media like fungi. There is no longer any way to keep track of them: every day or two, a new page appears under a different name but with the same content promoting the axis’s narrative in all its domestic and regional dimensions.
These are not mere social media accounts in the narrow sense of the word. They express the axis’s need to disseminate its storyline across multiple issues and market it widely. The phenomenon is therefore highly significant, not a mere formality.
In the past, the Axis avoided responding. It left room for speculation, opinions, and ideas, steering clear of all kinds of polemics, and relied instead on a few activists to deliver the necessary rhetoric without much pushback.
But today, it seems the axis feels the need for more direct communication and for adopting a more aggressive language as a way to compensate for the confusion among its supporters, who struggle either to justify what is happening or to engage with it meaningfully.
This dynamic began in earnest with the signing of the ceasefire agreement that effectively allowed Israeli use of Lebanese airspace. Resistance supporters were left bewildered, unsure how to respond. The confusion deepened with the second issue: repeated Israeli violations, to which Hezbollah did not respond, not even with a token rocket fired at empty farmland. Supporters could not understand why the militia restrained itself, nor could it tell them openly that any retaliation risked triggering a new war under the terms of that very agreement.
The same pattern continued with the election of the president and the appointment of the Prime Minister. In both cases, Hezbollah was dissatisfied yet refrained from naming candidates. In the past, even symbolic decisions required the group’s blessing. How could it now explain to its base that what happened was a democratic process it once suppressed? The issue resurfaced with the appointment of a Shia minister from outside the Hezbollah-Amal duo and with government decisions on restricting weapons despite Shia ministers’ opposition and withdrawal. In the past, a boycott by Shia ministers had paralyzed the country for two years, sparking economic decline and culminating in the events of May 7.
All of this has left resistance supporters unconvinced by current developments. They either behave as though the movement were still at the height of its power or remain silent out of sheer uncertainty about what to say. This is the rationale behind the proliferation of these pages. For the resistance’s base, the battle today is an information war. In order to unify their message, every word is scrutinized, and the multiplication of these accounts is meant to ensure that the narrative is spread everywhere.
Comments