The specter of military escalation has once again come to hover over Lebanon, following Israeli airstrikes carried out on Thursday targeting sites in southern Lebanon and other border areas.
In a statement issued on Thursday, the Israeli military said the strikes targeted Hezbollah positions, including “a training complex belonging to the Radwan Force and military facilities used to store weapons,” asserting that “these activities constitute a violation of the existing understandings between Israel and Lebanon,” and warning that it would “continue to act against the threats posed by Hezbollah.”
The Israeli military also announced that it intercepted what it described as “errant target” in the town of Baram in northern Israel after air-raid sirens went off over what was suspected to be a drone. A source described by Reuters as close to Hezbollah denied that the group had any connection to the incident.
These developments come after comments by the Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who said on Dec. 25 that “the specter of war has been pushed away from Lebanon,” stressing that “things are headed in a positive direction.”
Political and diplomatic contacts have also continued in an effort to prevent a slide into a new, full-scale confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah.
All of this, however, raises a key question about the reason behind the apparent contradiction between the reality on the ground and the reassuring messages Lebanese officials have been keen to convey in recent days and weeks. It also raises another question about the direction developments may take in the period ahead.
Political analyst Elias Zoghby told Alhurra that “the contradiction between those who warn of an imminent Israeli escalation against Hezbollah and those who say the specter of war has receded, as repeatedly stated by President Joseph Aoun, goes to show that the near future is unclear to everyone except for two figures: U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who recently met in Florida.”
In any case, official Lebanese reassurances have not fully dispelled public fears of an escalation between Israel and Hezbollah, with all the attendant risks of death, displacement, destruction, and the total collapse of what remains of infrastructure and an economy already under severe strain.
Time appears to be running out for Lebanon to accomplish the “disarmament of Hezbollah,” as stipulated in the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, which was signed more than a year ago.
Israel is pushing toward the “disarmament of the group” through military action and continued airstrikes, while regional and Western countries are exerting pressure on the Lebanese government to achieve that goal.
Zoghby believes that “the Lebanese situation can no longer withstand this gray zone, and the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons is now on the operating table, i.e. will be resolved either peacefully or through war.” He added: “Recent internal developments in Iran have tipped the balance toward addressing the issue at its roots, meaning the origin and reference point of these weapons. To understand what will happen in Lebanon, we must follow these developments in Iran.”
All indications suggest that the current situation remains highly volatile and could explode at any moment if matters slip out of control or if the issue of “disarming Hezbollah” reaches a dead end. Until then, Lebanese citizens continue to live under the weight of anxiety, waiting to see whether official reassurances will hold up against the roar of aircraft, or whether the country will once again be pushed into the furnace of a full-scale confrontation.
