Eurasia Press & News
Analysis: A ramping up of cross-border attacks and Israeli rhetoric could bring Hezbollah and Israel to the brink of war, despite huge risks for both sides.
Rockets fired by Hezbollah at northern Israel last week caused days of wildfires that burned over 2,500 acres of land, raising fears of an all-out war amid fresh calls for a military escalation from Israeli officials.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated on Wednesday that he is prepared to take “very strong action” to restore security along the border, while Israel’s northern army commander said the military is ready for war.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, meanwhile, have further ramped up the rhetoric, calling for Israel to invade and reoccupy Lebanon.
Such statements, along with recent Israeli army drills in northern Israel, raise the prospect of a more intense conflict with Hezbollah following cross-border exchanges since October.
In that time, Israeli attacks have killed around 300 Hezbollah members and 80 civilians, while 18 Israeli soldiers and 10 civilians have been killed in attacks from Lebanon.
Calculated escalation
Hezbollah has said its military operations in Israel are in response to Israel’s war on Gaza and that the group is not seeking an all-out conflict with Israel. But both sides have intensified attacks in recent weeks amid ongoing Gaza ceasefire talks, with Hezbollah saying in the past it would halt attacks if a truce were agreed and the Gaza war ends.
Israel, meanwhile, faces huge internal pressure to secure the release of hostages in Gaza and return 80,000 residents displaced from the north to their homes amid the conflict with Hezbollah. This urgency to return displaced residents is fuelling calls for Israel to strike Hezbollah strongholds to stop attacks from the group, but that strategy in itself risks widening the conflict and preventing their return.
In this context, wildfires in northern Israel are not a threshold that would automatically trigger a full-scale war between Israel and Hezbollah. They do, however, accelerate the likelihood of a broader escalation with each passing moment.
"Israel cannot go to war in Lebanon without US military and political support. The US holds significant leverage over this decision, as Israel needs US backing to restock weapons and sustain prolonged conflict" “Both sides are still exercising restraint despite increased aggression since 7 October. This is a subthreshold conflict, with significant damage on both sides, particularly in northern Israel, where 80,000 Israelis cannot return home,” Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King’s College London and CEO of consulting firm MENA Analytica, told The New Arab.
“While Israel is hesitant to open a second front in Lebanon due to its commitments in Gaza, the situation is becoming intolerable, especially with Hezbollah’s new ability to bypass the Iron Dome system, indicating that Israel may soon need to take more decisive action,” he added.
Hezbollah has been using new weaponry and tactics in its conflict with Israel, employing advanced weapons and targeting deeper within the country. This includes explosive-laden drones, firing a guided missile at Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system in Ramot Naftali, and using squadrons of drones to target Israeli units in Galilee.
Hanin Ghaddar, a Friedmann Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told TNA that although Israel wants to eliminate Hezbollah, it acknowledges that this would lead to a destructive war and a severe response from the Lebanese group, especially during the war on Gaza.
The analyst pointed out that Israel cannot engage in a full-scale war with Hezbollah without US military support, which is unlikely before the US elections in November. Therefore, the aim is to establish deterrence and reduce Hezbollah’s attacks.
“I think what we can expect is probably more escalation, but it will still be some kind of calculated escalation,” she said.
The risks of all-out war
Michael Young, a political analyst and senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center, told TNA that amid Gaza ceasefire talks both Israel and Hezbollah are trying to impose a solution on the border to their own advantage, intensifying the level of fighting to show they have deterrence capability.
Israel and Hezbollah know that an American-mediated border negotiation may take place and are preparing for such talks, he suggested. “Both Israel and Hezbollah need a solution, at least a face-saving measure, to convince their own population the border is safe,” he said.
While a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas could lead Hezbollah to halt military operations against Israel, Krieg argues that it’s uncertain whether Israel would follow suit. If Israel enters the second phase of the Biden proposal, which involves a permanent ceasefire, the Israeli army would partially demobilise and withdraw from Gaza. This would allow Israel to redirect military resources to the north to confront Hezbollah.
"While Hezbollah, lacking political intent for a full-scale war, is unlikely to escalate the conflict, Netanyahu might prefer ongoing conflict, either in Gaza or the north, to avoid political instability and potential elections" “Israel seeks to reestablish escalatory dominance, which may involve significant military action against Hezbollah to push them north of the Litani River. While Hezbollah, lacking political intent for a full-scale war, is unlikely to escalate the conflict, Netanyahu might prefer ongoing conflict, either in Gaza or the north, to avoid political instability and potential elections,” he told TNA.
From a political perspective, Young explained that both Israel and Hezbollah need to avoid appearing weak, which could escalate tensions before potential negotiations. Israel can’t prevent Hezbollah’s presence at the border without a continuous war, therefore hindering the return of northern Israeli residents.
Both Israel and Hezbollah have interests in finding a solution. For Israel, this is to facilitate the return of its northern residents, and for Hezbollah, it is to prevent unrestrained Israeli attacks.
However, Ghaddar explained that regardless of the willingness of both parties to find a solution on the border, Hezbollah’s actions are linked to the war in Gaza. While a ceasefire would stop Hezbollah’s military operations, the decision for Israel to engage in an all-out war is linked to US support.
“Israel cannot go to war in Lebanon without US military and political support. The US holds significant leverage over this decision, as Israel needs US backing to restock weapons and sustain prolonged conflict. The war could potentially extend beyond the 34 days seen in 2006, involving regional militias and requiring continuous US military aid,” she said.
Within this scenario, Krieg said that an Israeli ground operation in southern Lebanon would pose significant risks due to Hezbollah’s preparedness and its sophisticated arsenal of missiles and drones, which can target various parts of Israel.
Furthermore, given the current political instability in Israel and weak global support, a major war with Hezbollah would be ill-advised. The Israeli military is likely reluctant to initiate such a conflict, but the Israeli political leadership might decide otherwise.
At a broader level, Young argues that both Iran and Hezbollah aim to avoid a broader conflict, while the US, particularly Biden, wants to prevent war in Lebanon before the elections. Netanyahu might leverage the conflict to distract from domestic issues, but another war in Lebanon could be risky. Both sides aim to claim success; Hezbollah in defending its allies and Israel in ensuring northern security.
“It’s going to be one of those grey situations where each side wants to be able to say that they succeeded in their objectives,” he said.
Krieg believes that indirect negotiations might focus on Hezbollah withdrawing 10 kilometres from the Lebanese-Israeli border, with discussions possibly involving US envoy Amos Hochstein and other international mediators like France and Qatar, as both involved parties cannot achieve an agreement independently.
"Israel seeks to reestablish escalatory dominance, which may involve significant military action against Hezbollah to push them north of the Litani River" “The aim would be to freeze the conflict, allowing Israelis to return to the north, contingent on Hezbollah’s retreat north of the Litani River,” he said.
Ghaddar explains that a war with Hezbollah would likely result in additional displacement within Israel, and while it could potentially weaken Hezbollah, it would not eliminate it entirely. Hezbollah has refrained from using all of its military assets, opting to preserve them for a potential full-scale conflict with Israel.
Meanwhile, Israel could strike Hezbollah at any given time, depleting its military infrastructure, weaponry, and leadership – employing a strategy similar to its actions in Syria.
“They don’t need to go for full-scale war to do that,” Ghaddar said.
