The October 7 Hamas attack on the Gaza Strip settlements marked a significant shift in the dynamics of the Middle East. This incident provided an opportunity for various armed groups and non-state actors in the region, with Hezbollah in Lebanon at the forefront, to consider an intensified, multi-front, all-out war against Israel. This situation emerged following years of strategic preparations by these groups. Nevertheless, the unfolding of the operation and Hezbollah's measured response notably demonstrated the group’s unwillingness to truly engage in this war. This has prompted discussions about Hezbollah's stance and strategic considerations regarding the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinian groups.
The Context
The Hamas attack and what it revealed about the shortcomings of the Israeli military, intelligence, and security fronts provided a compelling context for Hezbollah’s potential involvement in the conflict, for two primary reasons:
1. Operational readiness:
In the months leading up to October 7, Hezbollah significantly ramped up its operational preparedness for any potential conflict with Israel. This intent was demonstrated through various means, notably a military parade on May 21, 2023, shortly before the “Liberation Day.” Hezbollah showcased its military capabilities including a simulation of storming the Israeli border and carrying out attacks within Israel in a manner akin to what Hamas did on October 7. Furthermore, this period witnessed heightened tensions between Hezbollah and Israel exemplified by incidents like Hezbollah’s installation of two tents in a Shebaa Farms village and the deployment of elite forces along the Israeli border.
2. A strategic opportunity:
The conditions surrounding the Hamas attack suggest that Hezbollah could rapidly engage in the conflict, especially in the initial stages when Israel appeared to be destabilized at various levels, including within its military. This scenario presented a strategic opportunity for Hezbollah to launch an attack from the northern front, possibly by infiltrating some of its militants into the border settlements or employing its arsenal of short, medium, and long-range missiles and drones, which are reportedly more advanced than those of the Palestinian factions. This situation aligns with the readiness of pro-Iranian factions in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria to wage a multi-front war.
Multifaceted Considerations
Hezbollah's decision-making process is influenced by a complex set of factors, linked to Iran yet distinct from other Iranian-backed militant groups. These complexities have prompted Hezbollah to strategically postpone its direct engagement in the conflict with Israel, opting for a measured and disciplined engagement strategy, as outlined below:
1. Lebanon’s domestic context:
Lebanon has been grappling with profound political, economic, and security crises for years, and Hezbollah has been instrumental in setting the stage for these crises on one hand, and managing them on the other. As a result, Lebanon’s domestic state significantly impacts Hezbollah's military decisions. Israeli authorities have repeatedly warned that Hezbollah's active involvement in this war would result in a firm Israeli response, with severe repercussions for Lebanon. Such a scenario could notablu diminish Hezbollah’s popularity in Lebanon, especially given the direct and indirect effects of the 2006 war, which lasted about 34 days, and resulted in human, political, and economic losses estimated at around USD 7 billion. Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah said that if he had known about these losses, he would not have carried out the war-instigating kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers.
Since the 2006 war and its subsequent engagement in the Syrian war in 2013, Hezbollah has been keen to promote the idea that it is first and foremost a Lebanese faction priotorizing national interests, rather than merely being an Iranian proxy. Hezbollah is also promoting the idea that his weapons are for resistance and defense of Lebanon rather than to harm its citizens. This stance is further demonstrated by its involvement in the negotiations that led to the demarcation of the maritime borders with Israel.
However, the economic crisis that Lebanon, exacerbated by events like the Beirut port explosion, has already eroded the party's popularity. Therefore, any full-scale involvement of Hezbollah in this war may result in a loss of its legitimacy within Lebanon, and an increase in internal opposition, which has repeatedly vocal about Hezbollah's arsenal.
2. Strengthening its leverage:
Hezbollah may perceive the current conflict as an opportunity to bolster its leverage over Israelparticularly in negotiating the demarcation of Israel's land borders. This objective has been a driving force behind recent military activities along the border. Consequently, Hezbollah's involvement in the current conflict is concentrated along the border strip and the 'blue line' established following the 2006 war. Hezbollah’s increasing operations in this area, including engagements with Israeli forces and the use of missiles and drones, are aimed at supporting this goal post-conflict. Reaching an agreement to demarcate these borders would provide stability, which the US might encourage.
3. Fear of destruction:
In response to October 7 attack, Israel’s actions seemed to drag the US into a trench simulating a cooperative and coordinated defense between the two countries. The United States increased its military presence in the region by deploying the aircraft carriers Ford and Eisenhower, boosted air defenses at its regional bases, and deployed special troops and military advisors to assist Israel in managing the war. Additionally, the US supplied Israel with weapons and ammunition throughout the conflict. These measures, publicly declared by the U.S., serve as deterrents to prevent the escalation of the conflict and the involvement of Iran and its allies, especially Hezbollah.
From this vantage point, Hezbollah may see that entering a full-scale war with Israel could have severe consequences, not just for Lebanon but also for the militant group itself. Such involvement risks undoing its recent achievements and diminishing Iran's strategic influence in the region.
4. Attribution without involvement:
Hezbollah has adopted an approach to support Palestinian factions in their ongoing war, a strategy characterized by backing and supporting without overt involvement. This strategy is based on escalating tensions on Israel's northern front through attacks on Israeli military targets or open lands or carrying out infiltration operations along the border with Hezbollah or armed Palestinian factions in Lebanon claiming responsibility for it. Such tactics compel Israel to reinforce its military presence on the northern front, alleviating pressure on Gaza and dispersing Israeli military and intelligence resources. Furthermore, Iranian-aligned militias, particularly in Iraq, engage in launching attacks targeting American bases, and the Houthis intensify missile and drone attacks towards Israel. Such moves serve as a counterbalance to American deterrence efforts, while also strategically avoiding the expansion of the conflict. Despite public statements that may suggest otherwise, this approach potentially aligns with the strategic interests of both Iran and the US.
5. Monitoring the conflict’s progression:
Both Iran and Hezbollah are closely observing the developments of Operation Iron Swords, as its outcomes are crucial in determining Hezbollah’s role in the conflict. Their primary concern revolves around the impact of the war on the Gaza Strip and the capacities of Hamas. If the operation results in substantial weakening of Hamas but falls short of its complete eradication, Hezbollah's high-cost involvement might be deemed unnecessary. Conversely, if the Israeli military's stated goal of completely eliminating Hamas is realized, Iran might consider deploying Hezbollah, recognizing Hamas and Islamic Jihad as significant components of its regional strategy.. Although these Palestinian factions are not direct Iranian proxies like some other supportive groups, their alignment with Iran aids in advancing strategic goals that resonate with Iran's ideological tenets and regional ambitions. This support reflects the mottos of the Islamic Revolution, claiming it encompasses justice, equality, freedom, support for the oppressed, and opposition to oppressive powers. Palestine, as a central ideological cause, unites various perspectives, and Iran leverages this to further its influence and promote its ideological objectives.
It is still too early to say whether or not Hezbollah will actually engage in the war and escalate it into a regional conflict. This uncertainty stems from the strategic considerations regarding involvement, both from Hezbollah's perspective and in relation to Iran, which unanimously agree that escalating the current conflict into a regional war does not align with the medium and long-term interests of either party. Consequently, it seems more advantageous for Hezbollah to refrain from direct engagement in this war. Should future developments on the ground necessitate Hezbollah's involvement, it is expected that the group will adopt a cautious approach, escalating actions gradually and within the disciplined rules of engagement.
As a result, the chances of the conflict not escalating into a full-fledged war remain high. Meanwhile, Hezbollah continues to leverage its position by maintaining a visible presence in areas like Shebaa Farms, Kafr Shuba, and along the pre-2006 border line, setting the stage for future dynamics in the conflict.
