The Israeli army’s announcement on Monday that it had launched a “targeted” ground operation in southern Lebanon did not come as a complete surprise. In the few days leading up to it, the southern front appeared to be gradually moving toward that moment.
Along the border, Israeli military activity intensified noticeably, with additional reinforcements flowing into the area. This coincided with continued air and artillery strikes targeting several border towns.
On the ground, the situation was no longer limited to long-range strikes. Several border points witnessed limited incursions into Lebanese territory, accompanied by direct clashes with Hezbollah fighters.
So far, Israeli movements have been characterized by localized advances in some areas and quick withdrawals in others, amid exchanges of fire. These operations appeared to resemble field tests. However, the announcement of the start of a “ground operation” has given these developments a clearer framework, while raising a fundamental question: will the operation remain within its “narrow and controlled” limits, or could it serve as a prelude to a broader military expansion?
Battles on Several Fronts
Clashes continue on more than one axis in southern Lebanon, where Israeli forces are attempting to advance into Lebanese territory.
Dr. Khaled al-Hajj, a political analyst, told Alhurra that Hezbollah’s operations and rocket launches south of the Litani River undermined Lebanon’s claim that the area was free of illicit weapons, “effectively giving Israel a clear pretext to intervene militarily against what it sees as a security threat tied to the party.”
According to Lebanon’s National News Agency, the Israeli army attempted on Monday to push into Lebanese territory from the western sector through Labouneh Hill and along the Ramiya and Marwahin axes. From the central sector, it advanced through the Aitaroun and Maroun al-Ras axes. On Tuesday, an Israeli force was also reported to have entered the outskirts of Aita al-Shaab, coinciding with fighter jet strikes.
At the same time, Lebanese security sources told Reuters that Israeli forces had encircled the strategic southern Lebanese town of Khiam at the beginning of the week. Located about six kilometers from the Israeli border, the town is now effectively under Israeli control, the sources said, adding that Israeli forces are advancing west toward the Litani River. They have also moved toward Bint Jbeil, described as a Hezbollah stronghold located roughly four kilometers from the border.
Meanwhile, the Israeli army announced that the 36th Division had joined the 91st and 146th divisions to expand the scope of the forward defense zone.
Israeli army spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani said in a press briefing on Monday that “our soldiers are now in positions where our forces were not operating yesterday.”
On the other side, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem said the group is “fighting with mobile tactics without maintaining fixed positions,” adding that “a ground invasion will fail.”
For his part, U.S. President Donald Trump said that “Hezbollah is a big problem, and it is being dealt with.”
Limits of the Israeli Incursion
Although Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz described the operation as “targeted,” this has not dispelled concerns in Lebanon that it could turn into broader operations similar to the 1982 invasion. The concern is heightened by repeated warnings issued by the Israeli army to residents of areas south of the Litani and in the Zahrani region, urging them to evacuate their homes and head north.
At the same time, the Israeli army spokesperson declined to specify how far Israeli forces had advanced inside Lebanese territory or whether they would establish new positions. This leaves room for varying assessments, ranging from those who believe the operation will remain limited to a narrow border strip to those who do not rule out its expansion deeper into Lebanese territory.
A Lebanese ministerial source told Alhurra’s website that “dealing with Israel requires anticipating different scenarios,” stressing that the government’s position is clear “in rejecting any expansion of the war and rejecting Israel’s blatant violations of international humanitarian law, Lebanon’s sovereignty, and the integrity of its territory.”
Regarding Hezbollah’s declaration that it is prepared for a long confrontation, the source limited his comment to saying that “the government has taken its decisions,” without providing further details.
Strategic expert retired Brigadier General Naji Malaeb, for his part, believes that the Israeli army’s description of the operation as “targeted” should not be taken literally.
Speaking to Alhurra’s website, Malaeb said that developments on the ground open the door to two main scenarios. “The first is the possibility that Israeli forces will advance toward the Litani River, and perhaps even beyond it northward, especially if they do not face effective resistance on the ground.” He points to a series of warnings issued to dozens of villages between the Zahrani and the Litani as evidence of this scenario, suggesting that it may also be linked to strategic factors, including water resources.
“The second scenario,” he said, “depends on Hezbollah’s ability to sustain a long-term confrontation.”
Anxiety and Displacement
Beyond military calculations, residents of southern areas face an uncertain future amid the ongoing escalation. Katz stated that Lebanese residents displaced by the military operations will not be able to return to their homes until security is achieved for residents of northern Israel.
This reality has fueled growing fears that Israeli forces may remain in these areas. These concerns have been reinforced by Israeli media reports stating that the political leadership has approved a plan to demolish the first row of houses in Lebanese villages adjacent to the border.
In this context, Malaeb warns that “any ground advance may be accompanied by a scorched-earth policy involving widespread destruction of villages and infrastructure.” He noted that “expanding the forward defense zone effectively means destroying everything within the scope of operations.” He also did not rule out that the consequences could extend to villages with Christian majorities, even if they are not directly involved in the fighting.
Al-Hajj, for his part, noted that “villages with Shiite majorities have been the most affected, due to the overlap between Hezbollah’s military activity and their geography. This has made them directly exposed to escalation and led to large waves of displacement.” By contrast, he said, other areas with Sunni, Christian, and Druze populations have largely remained outside the circle of confrontation, due to diplomatic contacts aimed at keeping them out of the conflict.
Al-Hajj also questioned the implications of the next phase for the demographic balance in the south, and whether the changes imposed by the military reality will become permanent or remain temporary.
Open War or Limited Conflict?
In light of these developments, observers are raising two main possibilities: either the ground operation is a limited tactical step aimed at improving the terms of negotiations over security arrangements along the border, or it represents a new phase of confrontation that will reshape the military landscape in southern Lebanon.
In this context, two Israeli officials told Reuters on Sunday that talks with Lebanon could take place in the coming days to reach a permanent ceasefire that would lead to Hezbollah’s disarmament.
However, a well-informed Lebanese source ruled out that such talks would take place soon, “although they will eventually happen.”
For his part, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, said that “some parties are trying to mediate to host the talks,” adding, “I believe the next step will be negotiations, but first we must weaken Hezbollah’s capabilities.”
Hezbollah, however, has rejected an initiative by Lebanese President Joseph to enter into direct negotiations with Israel in an attempt to halt the slide toward a wider war. Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem said that the battlefield will determine the outcome, calling on the government to “stop making free concessions because they prolong the war.”
Regarding the proposal put forward by the Lebanese president to open a negotiation track, the ministerial source explained that what was presented constitutes “a roadmap to begin work,” adding that “the picture is still incomplete regarding the position of the other side, despite indications that Israel may name a representative for negotiations, although the details have not yet matured.”
As for the fate of the plan to restrict weapons to the state, the source said the priority at this stage is “achieving a ceasefire and addressing the displacement crisis, which constitutes a humanitarian catastrophe,” noting that “the government is avoiding entering into internal disputes amid the ongoing escalation.”
Al-Hajj believes that diplomatic efforts, despite their intensity, “collide with Hezbollah’s absence from any negotiating track, given that it is the actor on the ground, while the state remains unable to impose its sovereign decision on it and its decision-making remains linked to Iran.” He stressed that “this dilemma undermines the chances of addressing the weapons issue, especially after months of attempts without decisive results, which raises international doubts about the state’s ability to implement any new commitments.”
According to al-Hajj, “the military track is likely to move ahead of the negotiation track, with any talks later linked to developments on the ground.”
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
