Lebanon is not taking seriously the messages it receives, the latest being a French warning that Israel is about to take action against it, relying on the American stance, without considering that Israel might evade pressures from Washington. The repeated Israeli warnings to Lebanon are being treated as part of the media and psychological warfare that Israel employs amid its conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. However, the media messages differ in substance and context from those conveyed through diplomatic and intelligence channels usually involved in such communications.
Since the beginning of the Gaza war, the severity of warnings received by Lebanese officials has varied based on the situation in Gaza and the course of battles there, as reported by "Al-Akhbar." In recent days, Lebanese officials received a French warning that includes significant indicators of potential Israeli actions more serious than before, suggesting that Israel might soon carry out an operation against Lebanon. The Lebanese response to this warning is supposed to be taken more seriously, especially as the message included a caution that Israel is not acting as if it is under Western pressure, particularly from the U.S.
This coincides with American diplomatic information confirming that the U.S. administration's approach to Lebanon has remained consistent since the outbreak of hostilities, emphasizing the Vatican's efforts with the White House to neutralize Lebanon. However, the same information highlighted that Israel is not showing the desired responsiveness to U.S. pressures at this time and aligns with the French warning that Israel may undertake a surprise operation, potentially crossing Western red lines.
The sequence of messages is linked to developments in Gaza, especially regarding Rafah and the approach of Ramadan, where Israel might face pressure to act early before the Muslim fasting month, which could subject it to global media and political pressure, particularly concerning potential attacks on civilians and hospitals. This could further extend to Arab states, especially those that have taken a more passive stance. The same applies to Lebanon regarding the timeframe for any indication of an action directed at it.
On the other hand, the delivery of messages to Lebanon is limited to mere notification, as the Western countries that have intensified their envoy visits to Beirut understand that the Lebanese government is merely a mailbox for these messages, lacking any capabilities to deal effectively with issues of war or peace. Since the start of the warnings, and despite what the experience of the July War should have instigated, the caretaker government has not acted suitably according to the warnings received, nor have high-ranking officials from political and military spheres developed a complete readiness plan to prepare for potential incidents in line with the magnitude of the conveyed concerns.
Thus, no preventive measures have been taken, according to "Al-Akhbar," concerning hospital readiness, infrastructure preparation for food, fuel supplies, and securing essential life necessities, in addition to anticipating possible displacement scenarios. The experience of the last four months, although limited to border areas, has reflected the extent of the socio-economic challenges posed by Lebanese refugees, alongside the ongoing Syrian refugee issue in the event of any extensive Israeli operation.
Moreover, aside from the mutual accusations between Hezbollah and its opponents regarding its role in linking the south to Gaza, political performance has not progressed to genuinely reflect the dangerous reality that the Lebanese situation, not just the southern one, is at stake. In fact, Hezbollah's decision has deepened the existing divide in Lebanon, and any expansion of Israeli operations beyond the current controlled framework, according to the received warnings, will have political repercussions far greater than those caused by the July War.
Furthermore, Lebanon seems to be betting all its hopes on U.S. pressure on Tel Aviv on one hand, and on the success of indirect American-Iranian negotiations and Iran's reluctance to engage in an all-out war in the region, which has helped keep the pace of conflict in the south regulated and contained. Diplomatic channels involved view this as a complete Lebanese surrender, either to Hezbollah's logic of imposing a war equation in the south or to the logic of negotiations that may prolong and change based on the American administration’s rhythm and Tehran's interests in the region and the costs it seeks.
At the same time, it overlooks that Israel's calculations after October 7 may be unbound by any constraints, no longer adhering to the usual readings and behaviors, including linking its military decisions to what Washington desires.
