In the past few weeks, Lebanese residents and expatriates have experienced confusion regarding the fate of their long-awaited summer holidays, typically spent in their homeland enjoying the Mediterranean climate and delicious "healthy" Lebanese dishes, despite the excessive costs associated with securing electricity and water, distant from the corruption and accumulated inefficiency that permeates the state. The recent escalation of fighting between Hezbollah and Israel on Lebanon's southern border, along with Israel's increasing threats of expanding military operations, seems to have reminded everyone, especially Hezbollah, that the end of the war in Gaza or Rafah does not necessarily mean a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, as Iran and the so-called Axis of Resistance would hope.
Much of this illusion promoted by Iran and its allied forces relies on the concept of unifying fronts. This notion, advocated by Tehran, assumes that it has the capacity to combat Israel on multiple fronts, and when the time comes, it will destroy Israel and throw the Israelis into the sea, as they have declared for years. Ironically, when the moment of truth arrived on October 7th, both Iran and its main proxy, Hezbollah, stood aside, and instead of engaging in combat and diving into confrontation, the two sides contented themselves with what is described as a "war of attrition," ostensibly aimed at distracting the Israeli army and making it fight on two fronts, theoretically helping Hamas to win.
Curiously, one of the most prominent supporters and enthusiasts for this "unitary discourse" was the late Hamas leader Saleh Al-Arouri, who was killed a few weeks after the onset of “Al-Aqsa Flood” when he was targeted by an Israeli drone in his office in the heart of southern Beirut’s suburbs. Nevertheless, Hezbollah assumes that if it continues to manage this "low-intensity war," Israel, after destroying what remains of Hamas and Gaza, will simply agree to return to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, to be guaranteed by the current Biden administration or even by any Republican American administration.
Iran and Hezbollah's plans contradict their proclaimed moral principle. However, the model of separating fronts in the tactical mindset of these groups may be sufficient to convince Israel and the international community that "armed Shiite Islam" is more rational compared to those who did not hesitate to carry out the “Al-Aqsa Flood” or even the attacks of September 11 more than two decades ago. Unfortunately, many Lebanese, including some who oppose Iran's expansionist plans in the region, share this thinking. They believe that the United States can eventually rein in the Israelis and that Iran has no interest in declaring war on Israel.
Many of these assumptions are incorrectly based on the clashes and previous wars between the two sides, particularly the 2006 war, which ultimately led to the adoption of a ceasefire and Hezbollah's supposed withdrawal from southern Lebanon, an agreement that the ongoing conflict has proven to be absurd. Many changes have occurred since 2006, changes that the Lebanese under Hezbollah's "grip" and the corrupt political system refuse to acknowledge.
In 2006, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was able to save Ehud Olmert's government and Hezbollah, thanks to the diplomatic efforts of Fouad Siniora's government, which was deserted by Hezbollah and its allies in an attempt to explode it. This government was respected by the international community, and most importantly, by the Gulf Arab states, which allowed a cessation of hostilities and paved the way for a reconstruction phase.
In reality, the accomplishments that followed the ceasefire cannot be achieved now, as the Lebanese government in the current conflict is non-existent or even concerned with the conduct of hostilities except through statements of condemnation and announcing the disbursal of the remaining deposited funds for war victims, revealing that Lebanon is merely a post office for Iran. In contrast to 2006, the international community does not require any role for the Lebanese government; it is negotiating directly with Iran and urging it to use its influence to convince its allies to de-escalate, aimed at reaching a truce and releasing the Israeli hostages held by Hamas.
What the Lebanese in the south face is a besieged Israeli community that realizes that Iranian restraint is not necessarily a good thing, but a harbinger that Israel is surrounded by Tehran’s allies, whether in Lebanon or Syria. Therefore, the security doctrine that has governed Israel's relationship with Iran in Lebanon since 2006 is no longer sustainable or beneficial for Israel. The debate within the Israeli military establishment revolves around the challenge that Iranian proxies pose to the security and existence of the so-called Jewish state.
In the 1980s, Uri Lubrani, Israel's former ambassador to Iran during the Shah's rule and coordinator of Israeli forces' activities in occupied southern Lebanon, viewed a security doctrine that would protect Israel from the Palestinian threat and later from Hezbollah. This doctrine centered around the creation of a buffer security zone.
In this direction, Lubrani oversaw the development of the South Lebanon Army, which, under various designations, acted as a militia to prevent the Palestine Liberation Organization and later Hezbollah from reaching the Israeli border until 2000. In 2006, the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was a revival of Lubrani's doctrine, imposing an implicit agreement between Israel and Hezbollah that ensured no serious military equipment was stored south of the Litani River.
On October 8th, when Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah decided to declare war on the state of Israel, Lubrani's doctrine, which had been in place for over four decades, collapsed, necessitating the search for a new policy to neutralize Iran. On this basis, the Israeli army and the political establishment may not be in a rush to invade Lebanon simply because they have not yet devised new scenarios or doctrines that ensure their objectives.
While the Lebanese await the start of a comprehensive Israeli war, they fail to realize that, as a nation complicit and held hostage by Hezbollah, they are in the midst of a war that will not end in their favor. The world after October 7th has no place for a country like Lebanon, where its people do not understand that years of corruption, impunity, and the unethical behavior of the Lebanese political establishment have turned this small state into a security threat for the entire region.
If the Lebanese do not awaken from their deep slumber and reclaim sovereignty over their land, every indication suggests that the repetition of previous Israeli wars will be the best possible scenario. In this regard, the famous words of renowned historian Arnold Toynbee that "civilizations die by suicide, not murder" serve as a reminder to the Lebanese that if they choose to remain prisoners of Hezbollah, they may be the ones committing suicide.