Eurasia Press & News
“A new full-scale war will be more destructive for Israel itself.”
A rocket strike in a Beirut suburb this week has reawakened fears of an expansion of war in the Middle East.
The death of Saleh al-Aruri, one of Hamas’s longest-lived and most powerful leaders, and two commanders from the group’s armed wing, was a direct challenge to the authority of Hezbollah, which sheltered them and promised them security in one of its bastions in Lebanon.
In an interview with Saturday 150, Kenneth Katzman, a senior adviser at consultancy The Soufan Group, pointed out that the daring attack came to confirm at least two things. First, that Israeli intelligence is informed of the whereabouts of Hamas leaders in exile rather better than those who run the resistance in Gaza itself. And, secondly, that Hezbollah is not ready for a full-scale war.
Whoever is behind the murder of Saleh al-Arriuri has shown that he can do whatever he wants in the middle of Beirut, in the very heart of Hezbollah. Are you surprised by the muted reaction of the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah?
“If Hezbollah’s reaction was noisy, then we would ask where the deeds with which he would pad his words. She would have been forced to fire more rockets deeper into Israel. But both Hezbollah and the Iranians clearly judged that they didn’t want a big war at this point. They’re not ready for such a war.’
“We should also not forget that Hamas and Hezbollah are different organizations. Both cooperate with Iran. But their political tasks and programs are far from identical. Nasrallah said it himself: October 7 is a Palestinian issue, i.e. It’s not ours, Hezbollah. That is why his response (to the murder of senior Hamas functionaries on January 2) was more muted than expected.”
Do you think that the grounds for a full-scale war on the Lebanese-Israeli border are multiplying over time? Israel is already looming in northern Gaza, surviving Hamas fighters retreating south. Nasrallah himself said that after Gaza comes the turn of southern Lebanon.
“I think Israel’s intention is still to accumulate diplomatic pressure on Hezbollah to get it to the north – perhaps 8, or maybe 15-16 kilometers north of the border. Military funds are not the preferred option for Israel. Breaking down Hezbollah is a near-impossible task because this group is much bigger and more powerful than Hamas. Israel prefers foreign diplomats to get her withdrawal from the border. This will allow 80,000 Israelis to return to their towns and villages in northern Israel.”
But Benny Gantz said it himself: “The time for diplomacy is running out if the Lebanese government and diplomats don’t get Hezbollah to step down, Israeli defense forces will do so. Can he take back his words?
“Certainly the Israelis need to speak hard, threaten for a greater effect so that diplomacy can succeed. But a land invasion of southern Lebanon would cost them a lot of casualties. Maybe they want the United States, France and Britain to offer Hezbollah not just threats, but some incentives or posts. Maybe the next Lebanese president or the next chief of staff. Israel is relying on smart diplomats, especially American diplomats, to come up with a way to persuade Nasrallah to retreat north.”
The alternative will be a war that will be a repeat of 2006 or, perhaps, in 1985?
“Yes, in 1985, the Israelis had to stay in southern Lebanon – in the safe zone they set up there – until 2000. In 2006, Israeli troops did not perform brilliantly. Some of their goals remained unfulfilled. Then they lost a lot of tanks and other armored vehicles. This time it will be even harder. A new full-scale war will be more destructive for Israel itself, too, because Hezbollah now has more long-range and more precision missiles, with better anti-tank systems. Surely a new war will cost Israel more than it did 17 years ago.”
How do you assess statements from Yoav Gallant, Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli politicians about the future of Gaza with buffer zones and Israeli control over the border with Egypt. Is there a “security zone” forming there as it used to be in Lebanon?
“We have to wait to see if Netanyahu stays in power once the fighting in Gaza begins to subside. The United States is pressuring the Israeli government to transfer control of the enclave at least in part to the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu is against it, but some of his opponents from Israel’s political center are more likely to accept the American plan. Well, maybe with some new faces on the Palestinian side.””
But Israel, in this option, will want to keep troops in Gaza, right?
“Something similar can be formed on the West Bank of the Jordan River, where we have Palestinian authorities – ministries, municipalities, police headed by Fatah – who are collaborating with Israel to maintain public order. They’re reporting on terrorist groups to prevent attacks. A similar pattern could be shaped in Gaza. Fatah can build security forces that share responsibility with Israelis.”
How do you see the situation in the Red Sea? Is an escalation there more likely than in Lebanon? The Houthis continued attacks on cargo ships. Mersk and other companies have once again refocused away from the dangerous coasts of Yemen. There are also problems in supply chains globally. The United States and the coalition’s “Guardian of Prosperity” alliance seems to be failing, barely beginning…
“The pressure on the Houthis is very high. Twelve countries came out this week with a very sharp and unequivocal warning to them to stop the shelling and the attacks. If they don’t listen to the warning, I expect fighting against them in Yemen to follow.”
Will these fighting be effective? The Houthis have withstood for years of military pressure from their enemies in Yemen and their Arab sponsors.
“They can be effective. It depends on their size and intensity. The United States can be quite effective when it wants, as long as it does not affect considerations of the peace process and the civilian population in Yemen.”
Will there be no new missile strikes to permanently destroy Yemen?
“Yem Yemen has already been destroyed. The country was devastated (the consequence of the civil war). That’s one of the reasons that currently hobbles President Biden. He hesitates because the humanitarian situation is already desperate, and he does not want to be blamed for causing even more misery and destruction.”
