Hezbollah’s ambitions now contribute to its vulnerability
Lebanon, An-Nahar, September 20th
For more articles from The Media Line, visit themedialine.org.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told U.S. officials that Israel felt compelled to take military action to return its citizens to the north. An anonymous US official was quoted as saying, “US presidential envoy Amos Hochstein implored Prime Minister Netanyahu not to go to war against Lebanon.” More critically, as highlighted by a well-informed American newspaper, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has conveyed serious concerns to senior Pentagon officials about the imminent threat of Israeli ground operations in Lebanon.
A look back at Israel’s pager operation against Hezbollah, which resulted in more than 3,500 casualties within Hezbollah, shows that Israel’s strategic calculus has changed dramatically. The stability Hezbollah once sought under its previous rules of engagement can no longer be maintained. The low-intensity war aimed at exhausting Israel is now spiraling out of control, especially after Israel’s bold operations and the earlier assassination of military commander Fuad Shukr in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Israel is moving decisively toward escalating the conflict, which could escalate into an imminent serious and dangerous conflict, if not outright war.
Hezbollah would be wise to consider the dynamics within Israel. Unfortunately for the group, the major divisions within Israeli society regarding Hezbollah have disappeared. The majority of Israeli public opinion now supports decisive action against Hezbollah. The shock of the October 7 attack, combined with the threat posed by Hezbollah’s growing influence on Israel’s borders, reinforced the public’s belief that peaceful coexistence with Iran-backed Hezbollah is impossible.
The aftermath of the Gaza Strip conflict and Hamas has led to a fundamental change in Israel’s position on the threat emanating from Lebanon. Lebanon has been off Israel’s domestic political radar since a major war broke out between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006.
However, the current situation could quickly lead to a catastrophic war that would be devastating for both sides. The difference in capabilities between Israel and Hezbollah is stark. Hezbollah could cause significant damage to Israel, but Israel’s military is strong enough to crush Iran’s proxies in Lebanon. The asymmetrical balance Hezbollah seeks in a protracted, low-intensity conflict is unrealistic. Hezbollah’s missile arsenal, old or advanced, cannot counter Israel’s deployment of precision weapons with enormous destructive capacity, such as the Mark 80 series bombs. Late senior Hezbollah leader Ibrahim Hamad speaks before the funeral of Ibrahim Akil and Hezbollah member Mahmoud Hamad, who were killed in Friday’s Israeli airstrike on the southern outskirts of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon, September 22, 2024. A man poses next to Akil’s photo. (Credit: Reuters/AMR Abdallah Darsh)
If Hezbollah and Iran are counting on Israel’s reluctance to engage in a protracted conflict, the ongoing Gaza war and protracted skirmishes with Hezbollah, now lasting almost a year, should prompt a reassessment. is. Since October 7, Israel’s conflict has become existential, overshadowing the country’s political conflicts. Hezbollah may have made a grave miscalculation in unilaterally launching a war of attrition against Israel with the goal of a controlled and limited conflict. A change in strategic calculus returned control of the pattern and intensity of conflict to Israel. This change means that Hezbollah is reacting to conflicts rather than leading them. Although Hezbollah has recently tried new tactics to avoid missiles and suicide drones, it remains at the mercy of Israel, which determines the range of engagement.
Hezbollah has steadfastly refused to back down from its reckless involvement in the “war of support,” increasing the risk to itself and Lebanon as a whole. The escalating operations, first a pager operation and then a walkie-talkie operation, highlight the danger of the situation.
The US may oppose a major Israeli attack in Lebanon as it is losing hope in persuading Hezbollah to cease hostilities or forming a coherent Lebanese posture that will put pressure on Hezbollah. gender is low. Despite calls for restraint, the United States could covertly authorize a severe blow to Hezbollah because of the threat it poses to American and regional interests, and could work with the West to support Israeli-led security. It would highlight the conflict between security interests and skilled Iranian military proxies.
Hezbollah’s ambitions now contribute to its vulnerability. Iran’s significant presence and role as a vanguard in the region raises concerns beyond Lebanon, with implications for regional and possibly international stability. Therefore, it is impossible to protect Hezbollah within the current regional security framework. Iran’s influence will continue, but it will not remain a destabilizing force forever.
We bring you the latest news!
Subscribe to Jerusalem Post Newsletter
Hezbollah’s current war may spell the end for the group as it currently exists. If a major conflict breaks out between Israel and Hezbollah, it will not only be due to Hezbollah’s current reckless undertakings, but also because of its important role in the period when the region is being reshaped. .
The coming conflict will be more than a mere show of courage. Hezbollah needs to understand that it is not similar to the Syrian war, which achieved some success with Russian intervention and America’s tacit approval. Japan now faces a coalition of international and regional powers seeking to end this outdated phenomenon. Hezbollah must therefore remain humble and aware of the vast and changing geopolitical situation it faces. – Ali Hamada
Is Iran interested in a deal?
Okaz, Saudi Arabia, September 22nd
When examining the complex day-to-day events taking place in Gaza and, more recently, in Lebanon, it is crucial to keep an eye on the broader picture of the Middle East, which remains deeply unstable. A new reality is being forced upon us.
Iran continues to negotiate with the United States in unspecified third countries, but has experienced significant setbacks among its regional proxies. This includes the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in central Tehran during an official visit.
Iran’s attitude reminds me of the spirit of an old Esfahani merchant haggling in a bazaar. “Now is the time to make a deal.” Iran’s new president’s unexpectedly warm remarks about the “Great Devil” America highlight the prevailing political reality.
As a result, Hamas and Hezbollah have been “left alone” in the conflict with Israel. Iran’s excuses range from Hamas’s failure to coordinate operations in October to claims that Hezbollah has no need for external defense.
This view is further supported by the Syrian regime’s complete silence regarding the turmoil facing its key ally Hezbollah. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad believes that some major powers have decided to sacrifice Hezbollah, especially given Iran’s indifferent attitude and Russia’s financial burden from the war in Ukraine, and that its defense is a waste that Syria cannot afford. They seem to recognize that this is a significant effort.
Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Esmail Qaani, who replaced Qasem Soleimani, has been deeply involved in supporting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, as well as previous indirect actions by the Revolutionary Guards in Syria. He also succeeded in recruiting the Salafi jihadist movement. However, recent developments indicate that Iran has withdrawn support from Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Iran appears keen to secure an agreement that lifts economic sanctions, attracts foreign investment and maintains its allies as influential political entities in their respective countries. There is no doubt that such deals come at a price, and the situation unfolding in the Middle East seems to confirm that. – Hussein Shobokshi
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All claims, opinions, facts, and information expressed in these articles are solely the responsibility of the respective authors and not necessarily The Media Line. The Media Line is not responsible for its content.