this.
The political and diplomatic side of events however, and the pathway to Israel’s strategic objectives via the current activities, seems much more opaque. As of now, the stated goal of the Israeli campaign is to enable 60,000 Israeli internal refugees to return to their homes in border communities. Some of these individuals and their families were evacuated after Hezbollah began attacks on 8 October. Others left of their own accord. Very few of them are willing to return until at the very least Hezbollah’s presence immediately adjoining the border is ended.
The main US diplomatic angle at present appears to be an effort to use Israel’s degrading of Hezbollah capabilities to force political change in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s deputy leader Naim Qassem said on Saturday that the movement would no longer insist on any ceasefire being linked to a similar ceasefire in Gaza. But the US appears to be focused on securing Hezbollah concessions on the appointment of a new president in Lebanon. This post has been vacant since President Michel Aoun’s term ended in October, 2022. Hezbollah has been insisting on its own preferred candidate, Suleiman Frangieh, taking up the position. The parliament is divided, the situation deadlocked. Washington hopes that Hezbollahs travails may induce flexibility in this regard.
The problem is that the appointment of a new president would not address the fundamental point in Lebanon, which polite political and diplomatic society still seems unwilling to confront: namely, that the official Lebanese state institutions are not able to issue orders to Hezbollah, and have no mechanism for imposing their will on the organization.
Simply put: the state within a state inserted by Iran into Lebanon, which goes by the name of Hezbollah, is stronger than the official Lebanese state. So any arrangement which relies on the Lebanese state imposing its will on Hezbollah is doomed in advance to failure. Given that this is the case, the US diplomatic effort regarding the Lebanese presidency amounts to so much whistling in the wind. Hezbollah can be destroyed or driven back in Lebanon only by force. The Lebanese Armed Forces, which include a large Shia element with its own contacts to the movement, cannot achieve this.
That leaves Israel. But as of now at least, as noted above, the dimensions of the Israeli campaign, telling as they are, appear to fall short of what would really be needed to severely and permanently downgrade Hezbollah. And once the IDF withdraws from the areas it currently holds, as the US is keen for it to do, what is to stop Hezbollah from returning and rebuilding once again (unless a permanent Israeli buffer zone is established).
In one of the more ludicrous developments, The UN forces in Lebanon, having failed to implement Resolution 1701’s requirement to prevent Hezbollah’s presence south of the Litani, now seem determined to prevent Israel from implementing this either. But the matter of UNIFIL, while garnering media attention at present, is ultimately a side issue.
The key point is that the current dimensions of Israel’s campaign in Lebanon, and the diplomacy surrounding them, appear to be incommensurate with the achievement of Israel’s stated goals. Whether this implies an eventual broadening of these dimensions, or whether it is an example of the familiar Israeli combination of tactical brilliance and strategic incoherence, is not yet clear.
The key lies in Iran. And whatever plans Israel may have to counter Tehran directly, they'll almost certainly be opposed by Washington.
Leave a Reply