The newspaper Haaretz considers that the most dangerous aspect of the military confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon is the feeling that this confrontation is a foregone conclusion. While it may not be seen as an extension of the war in Gaza, it could potentially lead to a broader war with Iran in the near future. With this introduction, the newspaper opened an analysis stating: "This war is a critical juncture where American and Israeli intelligence assessments diverge significantly. While the United States sees this conflict as having very different and more explosive geopolitical and strategic dimensions, Israel seems resigned to the idea."
American officials have expressed "concern" over their assessment that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu encourages escalation as key to his political survival, framing this war as a historical civilizational war between Iran and the West, while blaming U.S. President Joe Biden for not rising to the occasion. Following the Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7, 2023, the United States established that preventing escalation with Hezbollah in Lebanon and with Iran throughout the region was a core interest, sending two groups of aircraft carriers to the area and responding strongly to the idea of a preemptive strike by Israel on Hezbollah. The sentiment in Washington was that the skirmishes along the Israeli-Lebanese border had been contained, but "the escalation" returned dangerously.
While the current tensions between Israel and Hezbollah appear to center around the Shebaa Farms, they are actually part of a much broader context, involving Hezbollah acting as an Iranian deterrent against potential Israeli attacks on Tehran, and being a key component of Iran's network of proxies working to destabilize the region, according to the newspaper. Despite Israel's apparent military superiority, a war between Israel and Hezbollah would be devastating for both sides, as Hezbollah’s precise missile arsenal represents a kind of parity. Unlike Gaza, which is encircled on all sides, Lebanon has a long border with Syria, which in turn has a long border with Iraq and Turkey, ensuring the flow of weapons and fighters.
The most significant political dimensions lie in the onset of ground warfare, because if Israel were to invade Lebanon with the aim of removing Hezbollah from the border, it would effectively be invading a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations. This would immediately equate to the "Russian invasion" of Ukraine, which the United States and NATO condemned thoroughly, the newspaper stated.
Escalation should be viewed in a broader perspective; the "Russian invasion of Ukraine removed Iran from its relative isolation.” Additionally, the reckless decision made by former U.S. President Donald Trump – encouraged by Netanyahu – to unilaterally withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal allowed Tehran to accelerate its nuclear program, and Beijing has taken Iran's side. Thanks to its advancements in its nuclear program and the effective employment of Hezbollah and the Houthis, who threaten commercial shipping in the Red Sea, Iran has become bolder. However, it is still not seeking escalation but rather wishes to maintain Hezbollah as a deterrent, a viewpoint shared by the United States, which believes that this can be avoided through diplomacy.
Perhaps the most concerning and fearful aspect of any military confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah is its apparent inevitability and the feeling that it is a foregone conclusion, especially in the absence of a permanent diplomatic agreement between the two parties. Given Hezbollah's reasons for existence and Iran's regional motivations, such a war may simply be a matter of time. Current concerns about escalation clearly focus on the near future, as a support for or extension of the war in Gaza. However, such a war is not necessarily linked to Gaza, as it has its own underlying causes. Even if confrontation can be avoided now, war looms on the horizon in the next two to three years. But why not attempt, if the political goal is a diplomatic solution, to do so before the outbreak of war or instead of it?
