Main Edition
US
FR
October 1, 2024 - 7:00am
Since last October, the choice of whether or not to escalate the tit-for-tat clashes along Israel’s northern border has been Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s: and at every point, he has chosen to. Now, having spectacularly decapitated Hezbollah’s leadership, and wrought an unknown level of havoc among the group’s junior commanders through both boobytrapped communications devices and airstrikes in southern Lebanon, the ball is firmly in Israel’s court.
Perhaps the only thing that can restore Hezbollah’s initiative is an Israeli ground invasion of southern Lebanon, which would play to the militant group’s advantages. Hezbollah has spent nearly two decades preparing for an even more sophisticated layered defence of its core territory than it mounted in 2006. As the regional analyst Michael Young observes, “Israel has not won yet, and the Israelis have a way of allowing their brutality to undercut their political gains. If they decide to invade Lebanon, this may provide a valuable lifeline to Hezbollah, which is at its best when acting as a resistance force on the ground.”
Yet even here, it is unclear how much organised resistance Hezbollah is currently capable of mounting. The group’s command and control networks have clearly been heavily compromised, seemingly by both signals and human intelligence, and its morale is surely heavily dented. Israeli special forces have carried out raids in southern Lebanon in advance of a ground incursion, most likely with the intention of pushing Hezbollah back beyond the Litani River, permitting Israeli civilians to return to the northern border regions from which they have been exiled for a year. But an Israeli ground invasion would also introduce an unpredictable element into the equation: while Lebanon’s de facto rulers are now on the back foot, Lebanon’s notional government is weak and incapable of imposing its writ in the south. Indeed, the combination of invasion and the country’s dysfunctional sectarian politics offer a range of potential outcomes, few of them good for any party involved.
Israel’s Sunday airstrike on Yemeni port facilities, presumably a response to the Houthi targeting of Netanyahu’s plane with a ballistic missile, indicates a willingness to expand the war still further. Indeed, Israel’s Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi’s statement that “we know how to reach very far, we know how to reach even farther, and we know how to strike there accurately,” is surely a direct warning to Iran.
For the Iranian leadership, Israel’s bold few days of sudden escalation present a major quandary. Until now, both Iran and Hezbollah have been engaged in a carefully-calculated campaign of brinkmanship, with the United States engaged in limiting Iran’s military responses through both quiet diplomacy and the public deployment of naval aviation. But the game’s rules have now changed entirely: the United States is revealed as either unable to restrain Israeli escalation or tacitly in support of it. Iran’s doctrine of utilising Hezbollah to exert its power in the Levant now risks total dissolution, and its policy of “strategic patience” and a long campaign of attrition, playing to the country’s strengths, appears overtaken by events.
Whether the rapidly moving situation in Lebanon will strengthen hardline voices within the Iranian leadership — perhaps forcing a retreat from nuclear diplomacy and a hurried move towards obtaining a nuclear deterrent — or whether Tehran will use the setback to bide its time and reassess its broader strategy is unknown, perhaps within the Iranian leadership itself. Through its caution over the past year, Tehran has found its entire decades-long regional strategy suddenly at risk: yet it is also clear that Iran does not wish to directly enter a war in which the United States would almost certainly enter on Israel’s side. As Tehran wrestles with an appropriate response, what happens next is entirely in Netanyahu’s hands.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSuch a strange analysis. Israel’s strike in Yemen “indicates a willingness to expand the war still further”? How so? Isn’t it the Houthis that opened another front against Israel by firing over 200 ballistic missiles and explosive drones at it, and by interdicting naval traffic in the Red Sea? But when Israel is striking the Houthis for just the second time, it is the one responsible for “expanding the war”? Really?
As to whether the ground invasion of Lebanon will play in Hezbollah’s hands, this of course remains to be seen. It is probable that such a move has been taken as last resort, to remove the Hezbollah Radwan units from the border, as per UNSC resolution 1701, a resolution that ended the 2006 Lebanon war, but that nobody – least of all the UN’s own UNIFIL – enforced. The Radwan units have openly declared their aim to invade the North of Israel, and if successful would probably massacre or take hostage any Israeli they can put their hands on. After what Hamas did in October 7, no Israeli leader – indeed no Israeli – can ignore such threats, and Israelis will not return to their homes near the border until it is removed. All one can wish is that the Hezbollah is sufficiently weakened that the IDF can rapidly reach this objective, for the benefit of both Israel and Lebanon.
“All one can wish is that the Hezbollah is sufficiently weakened that the IDF can rapidly reach this objective, for the benefit of both Israel and Lebanon.”
Very well said.
Yes, it has a strong headline but the actual article peters out without any conclusion – ends in ‘whether this’, ‘whether that’…. Let’s see what the Great Strategist, Edward Luttwak, says in the other article posted today on Unherd about the upheaval in the Middle East. Glad to see EL back in Unherd, not just tweeting.
Indeed Iran does have a quandary. But there is another response it can adopt ie a terrorist bombing campaign on Israel’s supporters. Such support as Israel has in the West’s population may be damaged…or actually strengthened depending on the “optics”.
Most likely. The whole point of Hazbollah’s existence is to drive back an Israeli invasion, and the IDF’s strategy of firing all their ammunition at civilians doesn’t seem to have worked wonders for them in Gaza. Not sure exactly how they went from defeating half the Arab world in less than a week to getting humiliated by a tiny militia, but I suppose life is full of surprises.
According to Bing, the Israeli Air Force has flown 10,000 sorties in the Gaza war. Total casualties according to Hamas are 40,000. That’s an average of 1/4 of a person per sortie, costing hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour. Maybe the Israelis need help dividing two numbers, but that is a lousy way to commit genocide and target civilians.
I’m glad you’re not my accountant.
We all want no civilian casualties, except, of course, Hamas. I will appreciate your answer to the question, what should have been the Israeli response to October 7?
Iran and its proxies have been playing war for over 10 years, the way kids play shop. Intimidating their own people, shooting off unguided rockets, marching, posting videos, it’s all very performative… and easy. Now that their adversary wants to do war for real, they are not very happy. They would rather go back to playtime.
Also, as a paid subscriber to UnHerd, I am not a robot 🙂
Hello Lennon.
“as a paid subscriber to UnHerd, I am not a robot”. I used to think the same way as you on this, but whenever I get asked to prove I am not a robot by classifying pictures, I fail so often that I realised I probably am a robot.
Perhaps many robots are secretly our fellow subscribers?
Israel maintained a security zone in southern Lebanon for 18 years – 1982-2000. It lost about 250 soldiers during that time maintaining this. It may well see a repetition a price worth paying for kids in Northern Israel being able to go back to school.
Hezbollah may have created a similar network in the border area to that in Gaza. But the IDF has largely crushed it in Gaza. It’s also shown it has intelligence and capability beyond what Hezbollah expected.
Not sure what the Author thinks Israel can do instead. Just let Hezbollah continue lobbing missiles into northern Israel and make that uninhabitable?
Clearly unacceptable that people evacuated from their homes are unable to return – as displaced Palestinians have been saying since 1948. Why don’t the same rules apply to both peoples?
The problem was there was no displacement until the Palestinian and other Arab leaders leadership in 48 decided it preferred to try and crush Israel instead.
Neither Hamas or Hezbollah accept the legitimacy of Israel so it’s not an equivalence however you might try to imply that. Had the Palestinian leadership chosen peaceful co-existence, offered at least 3 times since Israel formed, then they’d have their State. Sometimes you get historic opportunities and have to take them. They didn’t
For once I agree with you.
However, I am surprised that you can not draw logical conclusions from situation in Labanon and wider MEast?
You continue to argue for mass immigration of Muslim savages into uk.
Why do you expect uk to be any different from Lebanon and ME if this immigration is to continue?
Hi Susan. If the IDF expel all the palestinians from gaza and the westbank, how long will the palestinian’s claim to the land last?
I assume you do know what happened on Oct 7th of last year ? Or what a state Lebanon is in, having two (or more) ‘bitterly’ opposed factions might not be great for running a country . And why that might make Israelites reticent about letting large numbers of Palestinians back into Israel.
Is yours a rhetorical question? I haven’t the time or the inclination to do a “compare and contrast” between Palestinian circumstances & Israeli, but I will post this, from an Israeli Arab woman whose family decided to remain and become citizens when the hate-crazed Arab leadership was urging then-Palestinian Arabs to leave, so that they could wipe out the Jews and then those who left could come back victorious. Typically Arab taqiyya and big talk. This Arab Israeli’s family stayed and thrived as did others:
https://tinyurl.com/2crf27yo
Roll over and expose their necks to the merchants of peace in Tehran.
long live the anti-Israeli existence
Long live the anti anti-Israeli existence.
Important to remember that Israel has fired four times as many missiles towards Hezbollah as Hezbollah has towards northern Israel since 7th October.
Source?
Why is it important to note that? Hezbollah attacked Israel. It should do whatever is necessary to prevent such attacks in the future.
“Important to remember”
Why ?
Hezbollah’s objective is to terrorise, Israel’s is to destroy Hezbollah’s ability to terrorise. I don’t think it’s written anywhere that that means one in, one out. Even the International human rights lawfare lot aren’t that stupid.
It also completely misses the point (a bit like the occasional artillery shell, which, ironically, is why they chuck more back) that if Hezbollah wasn’t chucking stuff, or preparing to do so, Israel wouldn’t throw anything Lebanon’s way.
Why is that such a difficult concept to understand ?
Mayhap some dark deep psychological impediment??? I quite agree. Had Israel not been attacked so horrendously on Oct 7th the status quo ante, however unsatisfactorily, might’ve endured.
Egyptian philospher, Tareq Heggy, wrote an excellent paper about the Arab world’s need for a culture of compromise. It transpires that the nearest Arabic can come to that is “half-way solution” which can be tough and infuriating if your honour depends on winning outright.
Language influences thought which in turn influences behaviour. Until Arab warmakers can compromise without feeling as if their honour and lives depended on not doing so, they’ll keep getting pasted by superior more intelligent forces.
More idiocy
This article is complete nonsense.
What other country would accept daily barrage of missiles onto its territory without response?
What other country would be expected to not respond and if it did respond to be accused of escalation apart from Israel?
Anyway this article and many others aged very quickly.
It was Iran which launched missiles towards Israel last night.
Israel should nuke Teheran nuclear weapons sites and declare that any further attacks would mean end of Iran.
Enough of appeasing islamifascists.