There were five important orientations to his speech. The first was aimed towards the Muslim and Arab Ummah, the second towards the resistance movement and its various factions; the third towards the Israeli occupation entity, the fourth towards America and the fifth towards the Arab rulers.

The speech sought to clarify issues on all levels, both towards friend and foe. When speaking to the Ummah, the leader of the resistance focuses on key points of value. An important concept raised is the unity of the fronts, which he clarified does not negate the independence of each group in its respective region, whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or Lebanon; no entity receives direct order from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Rather each entity evaluates their own situation and decides the magnitude of operation they wish to carry out. The opening of the fronts was highlighted as a flexible matter upon necessity, depending on the developments and to ensure that no respective entity is weakened or defeated under pressure. The function of intervention was defined as a matter of enhancing the original move. Therefore, the Al-Aqsa Storm battle was a Palestinian victory, no matter the entrance of any other front. If the Gaza resistance on its own is able to break the Israeli occupation, that is more powerful than if multiple fronts caused this breakage as it highlights the extent of the fragility of the occupation entity. The responsibility of the Al-Aqsa battle falling solely on the Gaza resistance is to imply that this was their decision and it is Gaza facing the consequences of it.

The leader of the Hezbollah resistance movement projected towards those in the Ummah who question why the fronts should expand into Lebanon and other countries entering into the confrontation, in addition to those questioning what the resistance front at large has done whilst the people of Gaza are being massacred. The response given to the former is that if Gaza breaks, Lebanon will be next since that implies victory for the ferocious occupation, whilst his response to the latter is that this operation was the decision of the Gazan resistance that did not consult the wider resistance axis. The role of the axis is to function as a support through media, money, political and security measures. He highlighted how in this confrontation, the resistance in Lebanon has relieved pressure off the Gaza resistance, with three of the military elite battalions of the occupation forces absorbed on the border with Lebanon, that would have otherwise been strategizing for the defeat of the resistance in Gaza. He also addressed the supporters of the resistance who wish for the fronts to open at any cost, stressing that the overall holistic and long-term interest takes precedence over emotions.

When addressing the resistance movement, he labeled the Al-Aqsa battle a Palestinian victory, whilst bolstering the involvement of Yemen and Iraq, such that the nations feel pride in weakening the occupation entity. He stressed the consequences of this war as worth the sacrifices made, since this confrontation has completely turned the equations on its head and the occupation entity is now in the defensive mode, thinking of how to repel the Lebanese resistance. He stressed how just a few months ago, if one occupation soldier was killed that would shake the ground, however now they are targeting beyond the occupied Sheba Farms, having killed dozens of occupation soldiers, targeted their military positions and equipment. The leader of the resistance referred to how the Lebanese resistance is taking real action that has led to 57 of their soldiers being killed.

When addressing the occupation entity, the resistance leader first addressed the settler population and the weakness of their entity, stressing how they themselves feel it is weaker than the spider’s web. He then addressed the rulers of the occupation entity, making it clear that the option of expanding the fronts is open, depending on the developments and if the primary objective of finishing the Gazan resistance- a very high expectation that cannot be met- remains in place. He also sent a clear message that the resistance is satisfied with the confrontation not escalating; since expanding the fronts is the biggest nightmare for the occupation entity, likely they will not take measures that accelerate this.

When addressing America, he makes it clear that the objective of America is to control the situation, whilst stressing they are aware of the strength of the resistance. He highlights how they are unable to undo the magnitude of defeat of the occupation entity and do not wish for the fronts to expand, therefore are likely to settle for political solutions to end this phase of confrontation. He made it clear that the resistance refutes the American position despite the threats, emphasising the presence of those who defeated them in Lebanon in 1982, who remain alongside their children today.

When addressing the Arab leaders, he speaks in terms of the national interests of their nations as opposed to the interests of Palestine. He questions the impotence of the Arab leaders who cannot even deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza and evacuate the wounded, following directly on his speech to the decision of the Islamic resistance in Iraq entering a new phase in the confrontation and Yemen publicly announcing its entrance into the battle.

The leader of the resistance furthermore emphasized how the October 7th battle defeated the idea of a settler living normally on occupied land, further highlighting their defeated morale and lack of ability to give their life for a land that was not theirs to begin with.