Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Israel represents a significant escalation in the conflict between the two states. Israel has pledged to respond to this aggression, which could include direct attacks on Tehran. However, the most active front in the conflict in the region remains on the border between Israel and Lebanon, following the invasion of southern Lebanon by the Israeli army.
The Iranian attack came after Israel killed Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. Iran’s close relations with Hezbollah mean they have much to do with the development of the conflict in Lebanon. At the same time, although Israel presents the invasion as a limited, short-term ground operation, the truth is that it represents a significant escalation of its conflict with Hezbollah, as well as a huge investment of military resources. The interweaving of the Lebanese and regional fronts will have an impact on the long-term security of Lebanon, but also on that of Israel.
Since its creation, Hezbollah has never been attacked on multiple levels, in such a short time and with such high losses. Within two weeks, Israel subjected the group to hybrid warfare, razed its main military installations and assassinated its top commanders as well as Nasrallah.
Hezbollah has pledged to continue its opposition, even though its security, communications and military capabilities have been severely compromised. Israel has insisted in its public statements that it is not at war against the Lebanese people, but only against Hezbollah, but Israel’s actions risk dragging Lebanon into instability.
Lebanon is already at stake due to sectarian sensitivities. Since its establishment as a modern state, the country’s political system has made it vulnerable to these struggles. Political representation relies on the distribution of power between sects, but instead of creating stability, the system has only fueled the struggle for power. The ruling elite, which has experienced many cycles of such violence in the past, fears that Nasrallah’s assassination could be a new trigger for conflict. The measured statements about Nasrallah by his Lebanese political opponents after his assassination were aimed at avoiding clashes that could take on a sectarian character.
However, there is now an Israeli ground invasion which, in the short term, unites the Lebanese people against Israel. Indeed, a land invasion is very different from an air campaign, even the most intense. There is something visceral about the deployment of soldiers. For the Lebanese people, seeing Israel once again infiltrate their country brought the anger and despair they hoped belonged to the not-so-distant past, when Israel and Hezbollah fought their last all-out war in 2006 .
Although Israel may be trying to break Hezbollah’s spirit with this ground invasion, it is actually breaking the Lebanese spirit. Even Hezbollah’s most stubborn opponents in Lebanon reject the idea of being “liberated” from Hezbollah, as Israel seeks to do, at the hands of an invader. The humiliation and anger of the Lebanese population is not a path to peace with Israel.
In the medium and long term, history risks casting a dark shadow. Previous Israeli invasions, notably in 1982 and 2006, have driven a wedge between Lebanese communities, fueling sectarian and political tensions. The 1982 invasion worsened the sectarian Lebanese civil war, while Hezbollah used its 2006 success against Israel to claim political hegemony in Lebanon; In 2008, the group deployed its fighters to Beirut to intimidate its opponents, raising fears of a new civil war. Lebanese leaders, seeking to calm tempers after Nasrallah’s assassination, now face the prospect of a new wave of civil fighting as a million people, mostly from the southern Shiite community, have were forced to flee to areas inhabited by other communities.
Even as ordinary citizens and civil society step up their relief efforts, the scale of the humanitarian crisis is unprecedented. The Lebanese state, overwhelmed and bankrupt, is unable to offer even basic services to the displaced civilian population. The longer the Israeli military offensive continues, the more sectarian tensions are likely to rise as winter approaches, resources become exhausted and public anger and despair grow.
Once again, Lebanon places itself on the playing field of regional players. This leads to another potential cause of instability. As Israel and Iran intensify their direct military confrontation, the risk of regional war increases. Since Iran views Hezbollah as its first line of defense, Lebanon could end up fighting for itself and for Iran.
Lebanon has always been deeply affected by regional developments in the Middle East. But faced with such a complex cocktail of challenges, the stability of the country is seriously threatened. Economic obstacles are mixed with possible sectarian tensions. National security is closely linked to regional security. And with Israel and Hezbollah refusing to take a step toward de-escalation, more fuel is added to the fire every day.
Israel may believe that crushing Hezbollah militarily is the way to ensure the security of its northern region. However, the crisis in Lebanon is sounding the alarm about its long-term stability. Poverty and anger are always a recipe for disaster in any nation. The internal instability in Lebanon does not bode well for Israel’s national security, especially since Hezbollah will not disappear, even if Israel overwhelms it militarily, and it has systematically used the discourse of “resistance » against Israel as one of the tools to assert its power in Lebanon. If this conflict has shown anything, it is that national security and regional security are closely linked.
Translation by Emma Reverter.
