Game lost lost
The game lost lost intensifies the clashes between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon as a competition of wills between Iran and Israel.
Tehran intends to impose a new strategic reality on Israel by establishing military communication and potential mutual dependence between battlefields in Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Israel is trying to respond to Iran’s plan with the most severe military attacks. The result of this confrontation has so far been a strategic inefficiency, the killing of thousands of civilians, displacement of hundreds of thousands, and physical destruction.
Currently, despite the attacks by resistance groups from Iraq and Yemen on Israel, the main battlefield is still Gaza and southern Lebanon. One day after Hamas’s attack on October 7, Hezbollah in Lebanon carried out attacks on Israel in line with Iran’s doctrine of asymmetric defense.
At that time, Hezbollah announced that it would continue these attacks in support of Gaza until a ceasefire is established, stating that there will be no real winner in this conflict and it is likely that no party will benefit from it. Hamas’ military capabilities have been severely weakened, and Hezbollah has also suffered heavy blows in recent days. Israel, on the other hand, has been in a precarious situation for a year and has endured heavy strikes.
Despite Israel achieving tactical victories, it is far from realizing any strategic achievements.
Northern Israel is almost deserted, and Israel’s international credibility and reputation have been severely damaged due to the massacre of Palestinian civilians. Israel’s economy is in a very bad state, and internally, Israel is facing turmoil in the political arena.
In the absence of a diplomatic strategy, Israel continues to focus on attacking Hamas and Hezbollah. While these attacks may politically benefit Benjamin Netanyahu, they will by no means address the aforementioned challenges faced by Israel.
On the contrary, Israel’s reliance on military means alone will not make it more secure. Dozens of confrontations with resistance forces testify to the validity of this claim.
It is logical to assume that Israel is trying to weaken Hamas and Hezbollah as much as possible to force them to come to the negotiating table. This approach may seem like a logical and classic strategy. In fact, Israel wants to convey to the world that negotiation is necessary, and the first step is to weaken the opposing party.
However, in this case, Israel may have fallen into the trap of excessive aggression. Israel’s reluctance to accept a ceasefire in Gaza, which is a prerequisite for reducing tensions with Hezbollah, has pushed the region towards a widespread war.
The reason why Netanyahu refrains from accepting a ceasefire is clear. Netanyahu’s political survival depends on maintaining the conditions of war, even if these conditions of war lead to a disaster. Netanyahu knows this well and manipulates the reality. He knows that the Israeli society does not dismiss a prime minister who is in power during wartime.
Even the United States, as Israel’s closest ally, has openly expressed anger at Netanyahu’s reduction in cooperation. However, if Israel’s actions in Gaza were causing more death and destruction, the US would have taken effective action. Now, it wasn’t forced to show fatigue and anger. This is not very difficult; Israel’s war machine cannot continue without US military assistance. Therefore, the US could have used this leverage against the Israeli government and forced it to turn to diplomacy instead of military actions. But it is unlikely that the US leadership will take such action before the presidential elections and engage in serious diplomatic efforts.
In recent months, Iran’s new plan to encircle Israel through its regional armed allies has not been entirely successful. Hamas, the Palestinian ally of Iran, has suffered heavy blows and will take years to rebuild itself. Hezbollah, Iran’s winning card in the resistance network structure, will face severe strikes in the coming days, with its military commanders and political leaders being targeted for assassination by Israel. Hezbollah’s communication network will be severely disrupted, and Israel’s surveillance technology will make it difficult for the remaining Hezbollah commanders to communicate effectively. Hezbollah has never experienced such a devastating blow before. The loss of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah would undoubtedly be a major blow to Hezbollah. He is the main axis and beating heart of this group.
He was a man who had a lot of influence and charisma in Lebanon and beyond the borders of Lebanon. The question of how and when Hezbollah can recover from this blow is a very big question that only time will answer. It is a mistake to think that Hezbollah is left alone in the current situation without help and is forced to remain. The philosophy of Hezbollah’s existence is contradictory to this assumption. Even Israel has stated after its recent attacks that Hezbollah still possesses significant military capabilities. Hezbollah still has the ability to inflict severe damage on Israel. Hezbollah’s precision missiles can target Israel’s strategic facilities and urban centers.
Therefore, Israel is at a crossroads in the current situation. If Israel continues to escalate tensions and attack Hezbollah, and if Hezbollah sees its existence at risk, it will likely respond to Israel in ways we have not seen before. In any case, if Hezbollah is to have no external support and cannot stand up to Israel, what importance will Hezbollah’s deterrence have? Therefore, in the event of a threat to Hezbollah’s existence, it also dictates Iran’s interests that Hezbollah respond to Israel with very high intensity.
Israel is intoxicated with some tactical successes in the current situation and believes that what it achieved with Hamas can also be achieved with Hezbollah. However, Hezbollah is a big fish that is not easily caught. Israel would have to be very foolish to launch a ground attack on southern Lebanon. Some Israeli political leaders have also warned about this. An Israeli ground attack on the south will only give Hezbollah the upper hand. Hezbollah knows southern Lebanon well and is trained for effective combat in this region. The mountains and valleys of southern Lebanon cannot be compared to the urban areas of Gaza. It is true that the Israeli army has also learned many lessons from the 2006 war, but Hezbollah has also gained experience from that conflict. The question is whether Israel has learned any lessons from its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon or not.
Now is a suitable time for diplomatic pursuit, and this diplomacy hinges solely on establishing a ceasefire in Gaza. A ceasefire in Gaza could lead to a diplomatic agreement between Israel and Hezbollah based on UN Resolution 1701, with Hezbollah retreating behind the Litani River. However, reaching this point requires the occurrence of two events: first, cooperation from Netanyahu, and second, whether Washington will take the right action towards Israel and prevent a disaster. In the current circumstances, there are few signs to be optimistic.
