With tactical and strategic panic evident among all key players, the Middle East is embroiled in serious disarray. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, and leaders in the United States and Iran are all gripped by indecision and lack of courage. Despite the escalating tensions, none have shown the necessary courage and wisdom to address and resolve the deep-seated crises engulfing the Middle East. Each leader, entrenched in their stance, seems more invested in maintaining power than pursuing peace. It’s a troubling spectacle of missed opportunities and mounting tensions, where the quest for resolution remains as elusive as ever. The current turmoil underscores the urgent need for leaders who can transcend entrenched positions and envision a future free from perpetual conflict.
Last month, in a stark display of belligerence, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah threatened Cyprus with an attack should it allow Israeli military bases on its soil. This Mediterranean island, a European Union member, received swift and unequivocal support from Brussels, which warned that a threat to one member state is a threat to the entire bloc. Meanwhile, pro-Hezbollah media reveled in the global anxiety stoked by Nasrallah’s inflammatory rhetoric, suggesting an impending regional war. Nasrallah’s provocations came on the heels of Israel’s announcement that it had greenlighted operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon. Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz emphasized that a full-scale war would spell Hezbollah’s destruction.
The future direction of tensions between Israel and Hezbollah hinges on ongoing negotiations, with Washington mediating. Amos Hochstein, the US envoy, has managed to address disputes not only between Lebanon and Israel but also between Hezbollah and Israel. Hochstein has tried to utilize Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri as a conduit between the Biden administration and Hezbollah. Despite Washington’s classification of Hezbollah as a “terrorist” organization, the Biden administration’s engagement reflects an attempt at averting a war between Lebanon and Israel. Central to these diplomatic efforts is a proposal that would see Hezbollah withdrawing behind the Litani River, establishing a buffer zone that would separate the militant group from the Israeli army, thereby reducing the risk of direct military confrontation. The pragmatism of the “Hochstein approach” to diplomacy essentially acknowledges that Hezbollah holds more power than the Lebanese state, relegating Lebanese sovereignty to the background.
On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his close associates are fixated on achieving victory at any cost. Despite the heavy civilian toll in Gaza and the failure to capture Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, there are now loud whispers of a potential operation to dismantle Hezbollah. The Biden administration’s stance is unequivocal: it will not pressure Israel to hold back if Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah rejects Amos Hochstein’s diplomatic overtures. Iran’s role in this volatile equation is complex. It could potentially prevent a full-scale war between Hezbollah and Israel. However, Iran is currently embroiled in its own domestic issues following presidential elections. This political upheaval, marked by intense power struggles and deep internal divisions, may incapacitate Iran from engaging in a conflict with Israel at this juncture. Rather, Tehran would currently prefer to distance its Syrian and Iraqi factions from a full-blown conflict to safeguard its crucial trans-regional networks. Iraq holds greater strategic importance for Iran than Hezbollah, and Tehran is unwilling to jeopardize it in a conflict in southern Lebanon. Tehran apparently aims to insulate itself from conflict, having no intention of engaging in reconstruction, mirroring its post-2006 stance. While Iran was focused on rearming Hezbollah, it was Arab states that invested billions in rebuilding Lebanon. This time, Beirut should not expect such recompense. The strategic maneuvering by Tehran highlights its priorities and the delicate balance it seeks to maintain in the region.
Amid escalating tensions on the Lebanon-Israel border, experts predict an inevitable full-scale confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah. In anticipation, Israel has authorized calling up to 350,000 reservists, signaling its readiness for robust military action. Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, Israel’s military chief, recently warned of an imminent decision in response to Hezbollah’s ongoing attacks in northern Israel, a sentiment echoed by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who affirmed Israel’s preparedness for decisive measures in the North. Initially playing a supportive role in the Gaza conflict, Hezbollah has escalated provocations along the border, resulting in mass displacements of Israeli residents. The clashes have taken a toll on Hezbollah as well, with reports indicating significant losses among its fighters and commanders. As tensions mount, the region braces for potential escalation, highlighting the precarious security dynamics at play. Washington’s stance offers little beyond urging Israel to accept Nasrallah’s terms: Hezbollah will cease attacks if Israel ends its Gaza conflict, reiterated recently by Nasrallah. This approach risks granting Nasrallah undue influence over Israeli-Palestinian relations, a concern amplified by Lebanon’s demands. The Biden administration lacks clear strategies beyond advising Israel to halt its southern offensive to prevent broader conflict in the North. This contrasts with traditional diplomacy’s ‘quiet strength’ approach.
Despite tough rhetoric against Iran and its militias, Washington’s deterrent stance appears uncertain. Nasrallah might interpret the Biden administration’s indecisiveness and ambiguity – possibly prioritizing domestic reelection over Middle Eastern stability – as tolerance toward Hezbollah’s provocations against Israel and potentially now Europe. After nine months into the war, Tehran appears convinced that in an all-out conflict, Israel would deliver a crippling blow to Hezbollah, its key ally. For Nasrallah, the prolonged fighting imposes immense strain, making a ceasefire in Gaza increasingly appealing, even if it means Israel unilaterally halts its campaign. Should a general ceasefire be brokered, Nasrallah would likely comply to avoid further escalation. This scenario hinges on a joint Israeli-US stance. Israel would declare that if Hezbollah does not retreat, it will initiate an all-out war, with the United States providing weapons, intelligence, and Security Council support. Israel will undoubtedly amass substantial forces in the North to pressure Nasrallah and Tehran to withdraw, similar to the 2006 episode. However, the success of this maneuver will depend on the understanding between Netanyahu and Biden, both of whom are currently facing challenges on their domestic fronts.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author(s) alone and do not necessarily reflect those of Geopoliticalmonitor.com.
