A Lose-Lose Game
The escalating conflicts between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon are essentially a contest of wills between Iran and Israel.
Tehran aims to impose a new strategic reality on Israel by establishing military connections and potential interdependence across battlefields in Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Israel is trying to counter this Iranian plan with the most intense military attacks. So far, this confrontation has resulted in strategic inefficiency, thousands of civilian deaths, the displacement of hundreds of thousands, and physical destruction.
Currently, despite attacks from resistance groups in Iraq and Yemen on Israel, the main battlefield remains Gaza and southern Lebanon. Hezbollah in Lebanon launched attacks on Israel a day after Hamas’s October 7 attack, following Iran’s doctrine of asymmetric defense.
At that time, Hezbollah announced that it would continue these attacks in support of Gaza until a ceasefire was established. So far, there is no real winner in this conflict, and it is likely that there will be no winner. Hamas’s military capability has been severely weakened, and Hezbollah has recently suffered heavy blows, while Israel has been in a precarious situation for a year and has also suffered significant losses.
Despite Israel achieving tactical victories, it is by no means close to achieving strategic goals.
Northern Israel has become almost deserted. Israel’s international reputation and credibility have been severely damaged due to the killing of Palestinian civilians. Israel’s economy is in a very bad state, and internally, it faces political turmoil.
In the absence of a diplomatic strategy, Israel continues to attack Hamas and Hezbollah. Although these attacks politically benefit Benjamin Netanyahu, they will not resolve Israel’s aforementioned challenges.
On the contrary, Israel’s reliance on military means alone will not make it safer. Numerous confrontations with resistance forces testify to this claim.
It makes sense to suggest that Israel is trying to weaken Hamas and Hezbollah as much as possible to force them into diplomatic solutions. On paper, this approach might seem like a logical and classic strategy. In reality, Israel wants to convey to the world that negotiation requires first weakening the opponent’s hand.
However, in this particular case, Israel may have gone too far. By refusing to accept a ceasefire in Gaza, which is a prerequisite for reducing tensions with Hezbollah, Israel is pushing the region towards a full-scale war.
The reason why Netanyahu refuses to accept a ceasefire is clear: his political survival depends on maintaining a state of war, even if it leads to disaster. Netanyahu knows this well and manipulates reality. He knows that the Israeli society does not remove a prime minister who is in office during wartime.
Even the United States, as Israel’s closest ally, has publicly expressed anger over Netanyahu’s reduced cooperation. However, if the U.S. had taken effective actions whenever Israel’s actions in Gaza caused more death and destruction, it wouldn’t now have to express fatigue and anger. It’s not very difficult; Israel’s war machine cannot continue without U.S. military aid. Therefore, the U.S. could have used this leverage against the Jewish state to force it to turn to diplomacy instead of military actions. But it is unlikely that the U.S. leadership will take such action or make a serious diplomatic move before the presidential elections.
In recent months, Iran’s new plan to encircle Israel with armed regional allies has not been completely successful. Iran’s Palestinian ally, Hamas, has suffered heavy blows and will take years to rebuild. Hezbollah, Iran’s trump card in the resistance network, has suffered severe blows in recent days, with its military commanders and political leaders assassinated by Israel. Hezbollah’s communication network has been severely disrupted, and Israel’s surveillance and intelligence technology makes effective communication among Hezbollah’s remaining commanders difficult. Hezbollah has never suffered such a severe blow before. The loss of Hassan Nasrallah is certainly a major blow to Hezbollah, as he was the main axis and beating heart of the group.
He was a man with significant influence and charisma in Lebanon and beyond its borders. How and when Hezbollah can recover from this blow is a big question that only time will answer. However, it is a mistake to think that Hezbollah is left helpless and without support in the current situation. Hezbollah’s raison d’être contradicts this notion. Even Israel, after its recent attacks, has announced that Hezbollah still possesses significant military capability. Hezbollah still has the ability to inflict severe damage on Israel. Hezbollah’s precision missiles can harm Israel’s strategic facilities and urban centers.
As a result, Israel is currently at a crossroads. If Israel continues to escalate tensions and attack Hezbollah, and Hezbollah sees its existence threatened, it will likely respond to Israel in a way we have not seen before. In any case, if Hezbollah ceases to exist and cannot stand up to Israel, what importance would Hezbollah’s deterrence have? Therefore, if there is an existential threat to Hezbollah, Iran’s interests would also require Hezbollah to respond to Israel with great intensity.
Israel is currently intoxicated by some of its tactical successes and thinks it can do to Hezbollah what it did to Hamas. However, Hezbollah is a big fish that is not easily caught. Israel would have to be very foolish to execute a ground attack on southern Lebanon. Some Israeli political leaders have also warned about this. A ground attack on the south would give Hezbollah the upper hand. Hezbollah knows southern Lebanon well and is trained for effective combat in this area. The hills and valleys of southern Lebanon are not comparable to the urban areas of Gaza. Of course, it is true that the Israeli army has also learned many lessons from the 33-day war in 2006, but Hezbollah has also gained experience from this battle. The question is whether Israel has learned anything from 18 years of occupying southern Lebanon.
Now is a suitable time to pursue diplomacy, and this diplomacy only starts with establishing a ceasefire in Gaza. A ceasefire in Gaza could lead to a diplomatic agreement between Israel and Hezbollah based on Resolution 1701, with Hezbollah retreating behind the Litani River. However, reaching this point requires two things to happen: first, Netanyahu’s cooperation, and second, whether Washington will take the right action regarding Israel and prevent a disaster. Currently, there are few signs to be optimistic.