Recently, after months-long clashes between Hezbollah and Israel, tensions between the two sides seem to be on the rise. Hezbollah announced that it would support the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation, particularly after the Israeli army entered Gaza.
The escalating statements from senior Israeli military officials, as well as from Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, have prompted many regional and international powers to attempt to stop this escalation. Incendiary assertions concerning the two sides’ capabilities that could decisively impact their deferred all-out confrontation have raised concerns about a full-scale war that could threaten stability in the region.
To fully understand the current situation in northern Israel, this article will examine the positions of the various parties involved in the crisis. This will enable us to understand whether the coming period will witness a war between Israel and Hezbollah, the nature of this war, and its implications not only for Israel and Lebanon but for the region as a whole.
Regional and International Positions
1- The Israeli position:
Senior Israeli military and political officials have consistently emphasized the necessity of waging a war to secure the northern region. Clashes with Hezbollah have prompted the evacuation of the settlement belt in that area, destabilizing the region and diverting Israel's military efforts from Gaza following the October 7 attacks.
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant stated that following an assessment of the situation in the northern command with the Chief of Staff, Chief of the IDF Northern Command, and the Air Force Commander, it was concluded that the Israeli army will continue preparations to confront any threat coming from the north, whether in defense or attack. Gallant emphasized that the situation in the north would change either through a settlement or a large-scale military operation. He added that the strategic goal must be to return the citizens displaced by Hezbollah's strikes to that region.
Several senior Israeli military leaders, including the Chief of Staff, have stressed the necessity of a large-scale military operation to deter Hezbollah, eliminate its military capabilities, and prevent a recurrence of the events that took place on October 7 in Gaza. At the same time, prominent right-wing extremists and ministers are advocating for a comprehensive war not only against Hezbollah but also against the Lebanese state, holding it accountable for Hezbollah's actions along Israel's northern borders. Officials have firmly stated that Israel will not tolerate any threats to its security.
Furthermore, Netanyahu's announcement to the U.S. Administration about his intention to initiate a rapid military campaign in Lebanon, coupled with his criticism of the U.S. for not supplying the necessary weapons and ammunition, could impact Israel's capability to conduct such a war.
2- Hezbollah's Position:
Since October 7 and the ensuing war on Gaza, senior Hezbollah officials have repeatedly stated that the organization represents a support force and an additional front in the conflict. They added that military clashes between Hezbollah and Israel are closely tied to the situation in Gaza. The militant group also asserted that achieving a truce or a cessation of hostilities in the north is fundamentally linked to stopping the fighting in Gaza.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's recent speech signifies a pivotal shift in the militia's approach. Although his address was aimed at the Israeli public and mediators, particularly the United States, it underscored Hezbollah's possession of advanced weaponry and ongoing enhancement of its military capabilities. This development suggests that any military confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah would not be confined or straightforward, but rather escalate into an all-out war between the two parties.
Nasrallah confirmed that Hezbollah has identified strategic targets within Israel and showcased the "Hudhud" drone, which successfully filmed key installations. This demonstration of increasing penetration capability highlights Hezbollah's ability to breach Israel's defenses and threaten critical military and civilian areas.
Moreover, Nasrallah acknowledged the challenges faced by both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, especially in Rafah. He implied that if the conflict in Gaza continues unabated, a comprehensive and open war would become an inevitable course of action.
3- The U.S. position:
In recent weeks, the U.S. stance on these developments has focused on two primary areas. The first involves an effort to reconcile differing views through mediation, spearheaded by President Joe Biden's envoy, Amos Hochstein, who conducted shuttle diplomacy between Tel Aviv and Beirut. Hochstein engaged with Lebanese figures closely associated with Hezbollah, particularly Nabih Berri, a staunch ally. His efforts aimed to persuade Hezbollah to withdraw its forces south of the Litani River and to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which designates the Blue Line as a buffer zone between Israeli and Hezbollah forces.
Israel has consistently aimed to expand the buffer zone between its border and Hezbollah’s military presence. This expansion aims to eliminate tunnels and air defense platforms for the militant group in the area, thereby significantly enhancing security for northern Israel. During his visit to Tel Aviv, following a stop in Beirut, Hochstein admitted that his mission had failed and acknowledged that both parties were seeking to escalate tensions.
The second pillar of the American stance on this crisis was its unequivocal public support for Israel. This was prominently demonstrated by the redeployment of U.S. aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean and ongoing discussions about providing military aid and ammunition to Israel. This response was catalyzed by pressure from Netanyahu, who, in a video, accused the Biden administration of failing to support Israel. Consequently, Washington recently approved a substantial arms deal worth over $18 billion for Israel, signaling robust support for its ally should it consider going to war.
4- Europe’s position:
From the onset of military operations in northern Israel along the Lebanese border, it was evident that Europe, particularly France, was deeply concerned about these developments. France was keen to prevent the escalation of military activities in Lebanon and to avoid attributing significant responsibility to Lebanon for the situation in Gaza. Consequently, European efforts were significantly intensified to bolster Hochstein's initiatives aimed at achieving reconciliation between the conflicting parties. Furthermore, European nations with strong ties to Iran initiated diplomatic contacts to curb the escalation and ensure it remained within controlled limits.
Part of the European position stems from concerns that large-scale military operations in Lebanon could lead to waves of illegal immigration by Lebanese citizens and Syria-based refugees to southern Mediterranean European countries. These EU nations have already provided $1 billion to the Lebanese government to help settle Syrian refugees and prevent such an outcome.
5- Iran’s position:
Iran has consistently played a pivotal role in this crisis, with Hezbollah serving as an essential ally and a direct link between Iran and Israel. Tehran views Hezbollah's survival and military strength as critical defenses against Israel's strategic intentions to attack Iran and weaken its military and nuclear capabilities. Consequently, Iran's support for Hezbollah has been unequivocal, evidenced by frequent visits from senior Iranian officials to Beirut. Notably, acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani and the commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force, Esmail Qaani, have engaged in meetings with Hezbollah’s military and political leadership.
Multiple intelligence and military reports confirm that Iran has recently equipped Hezbollah with advanced weaponry, including modern drones and various munitions. This essentially prepares the militant group's arsenal for a large-scale military operation, should Israeli political and military leadership decide to launch an offensive against Hezbollah.
The Iranian stance is also rooted in Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s declaration on the importance of persisting with operations against Israel. Khamenei underscored that Iran-affiliated forces in the region back Hamas in their conflict, utilizing the broader Iranian position on unresolved issues with the United States. To comprehend Iran’s perspective, one must consider the recent pressures it has encountered, particularly from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which indirectly includes the U.S. and Europe.
Expected Paths
Despite the evident escalation by both Israeli and Hezbollah leaders, the situation remains constrained within a cycle of mutual retaliation. However, the level of deterrence has notably intensified in recent times. This can be explained as follows:
1- Netanyahu and Israeli military leaders' discussions about a swift military operation in Lebanon to dismantle Hezbollah's military capabilities also serve as a form of pressure on the current U.S. administration. This stance undermines President Biden's electoral prospects and creates opportunities for Trump's return, whom Netanyahu hopes will fully support his position in the Middle East. Additionally, it pressures President Biden to enhance support for Israeli military capabilities. This strategy allows Netanyahu to avoid achieving the declared strategic goals of expanding military operations in the north, using the pretext of needing to return residents to settlements near the Lebanese border. This move follows escalating criticism from residents in northern Israel and the Gaza envelope, ultimately weakening Netanyahu's popularity.
2- Netanyahu's rhetoric about war against Hezbollah partly aims to appease the extreme right-wing figures in his government, who have started pressuring to destabilize the coalition under his leadership. Netanyahu is not only justifiably wary of this threat but is also anxious about the possibility of early elections.
3- Despite providing military and political support to Israel, the United States still seeks to avoid escalating tensions and threats to regional stability. This is because such tensions could hinder the US strategy of integrating Israel into the region, normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and forming a coalition against Iran. Moreover, the US is concerned that an Israeli conflict with Hezbollah could trigger a more direct Iranian response and active involvement in operations. This not only jeopardizes regional stability and waterways but also complicates the situation for President Biden leading up to the upcoming US elections.
In conclusion, despite the signs pointing towards a possible military confrontation and the preparations made by both Israel and Hezbollah, it is unlikely that either side will initiate a large-scale operation. Instead, they will focus on maximizing deterrence. The ongoing mediation efforts may lead Hezbollah to agree to withdraw its forces to the south of the Litani River, on the condition that Israeli forces do not enter that area. The Lebanese military and UNIFIL peacekeeping forces would maintain their positions there to ensure security, representing a compromise. This arrangement would give Israel a larger area for deploying its forces while helping Hezbollah achieve its strategic goal.
It is important to note that, according to Hezbollah, the Lebanese-Israeli border is not solely defined by Resolution 1701. Hezbollah considers areas such as the Shebaa Farms and the occupied Golan Heights as Lebanese territory, whereas Israel claims they are part of occupied Syrian land. This situation has the potential to undermine Hezbollah's justification for possessing weapons under the pretext of liberating occupied Lebanese lands.
