Subject to decisions pending in Tehran in response to the double-targeted killings of senior Hezbollah and Hamas officials, Israel now seems on the brink of a multi-front regional conflagration. Is victory assured? At what cost? Could US special envoy Amos Hochstein’s diplomatic plan eventually prevail? The initiatives are left to Iran and its proxies, but should Israel identify imminent preparations for attack, it will likely act to preempt.
To date, Israel and Hezbollah have been engaged in a limited war of attrition. On October 8, 2023, Hezbollah joined Hamas in waging war on Israel. Lebanon’s Iranian proxy declaratively sought to apply tactical pressure on Israel’s northern front. It seemingly succeeded, effectively forcing the IDF to split its forces, with a recorded northern deployment of between three to five divisions, manned by a reservists call-up, amounting to a force of roughly 300,000 troops.
During the initial stages of the war, Israel’s war cabinet deliberated whether to launch a two-front offensive against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant voted in favor, while former war cabinet ministers Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot voted against.
Ultimately, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ruled in favor of the latter position after US President Joe Biden held a phone conversation with the Israeli premier and threatened to pull US military support unless the IDF limited its retaliatory strikes to territories south of the Litani River and refrain from targeting Lebanon’s critical infrastructure.
Nine months later, the Biden administration remains proactively determined to de-escalate daily cross-border hostilities, leveraging crucial ammunition shipments as one of its methods to effectively control Israel’s battle intensity vs Hezbollah in Lebanon.
By doing so, Washington hopes to buy enough time to secure a temporary arrangement, utilizing Parliament Speaker Nabi Berri, leader of the Shi’ite Amal Movement, as a mediator. However, a senior Israeli intelligence official ascertained, “Berri has no leverage over Hezbollah,” rather, “it is the other way around.” Hezbollah evidently maintains the upper hand in negotiations, irrespective of the Biden administration’s hopes and aspirations.
The majority of Israel’s defense and political elites seemingly believe the rationale articulated by Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah. “On that day, when the shooting stops in Gaza, we will stop the shooting in the south [of Lebanon],” Nasrallah insisted in one of his many televised addresses. In daily conversations with Israeli intelligence officials and military officers, broad sentiments of wishful thinking linger vis-à-vis achieving a negotiated solution.
“Even Netanyahu hopes for a diplomatic outcome,” one official told me, as he subsequently professed that Jerusalem would much rather fight Hezbollah once fully equipped with a long list of new military technologies on the verge of operational integration.
Nevertheless, despite hopes for a peaceful resolution, no one in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv is under any illusion. Tens of thousands of internally displaced Israelis will not return to their homes unless a sense of security is achieved.
Moreover, in stark contrast to popular belief regarding Iran supposedly restraining Hezbollah, the ayatollah regime has a vested strategic interest in fueling the war within current established parameters. It remains evasive of paying any substantive toll for its belligerent activities, while its heavily armed Lebanese proxy showcases battle discipline, worthy of most Western militaries, with clear pre-planned objectives.
Nevertheless, prospects for miscalculation are seemingly intensifying every day.
Despite popular belief, Nasrallah’s intensive efforts to frame regional hostilities as a response to the Palestinian plight is a cheap ruse. The current multi-front Mideast war is not a simple case of causality rooted in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Rather, we’re witnessing the prudent implementation of Iran’s strategic schemes, as envisioned by its slain IRGC Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, with Hamas part of a key factor in Iran’s war strategy for both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as well as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
What concessions would Israel have to make?
Last week, Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen, a former General Staff and Northern Corps’ commander, cautioned in a conversation that US envoy Hochstein was seeking to formulate a deal that would undoubtedly spell “defeat marred by painful concessions for Israel.”
Hochstein essentially seeks to force Israel’s hand to concede border lands in exchange for a temporary withdrawal of Hezbollah operatives several miles northward. “What’s to stop those operatives from returning to the south [of Lebanon] five minutes after an agreement is signed?” Hacohen questioned with evident frustration. “They demand of us an irreversible concession in exchange for a reversible act.”
Purportedly ignoring Iran’s grand strategy, the Biden administration is doubling down on pressuring Israel to accept the proposed deal for a northern ceasefire.
Israeli National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer met with US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, demanding assurances. Should Hezbollah breach the terms of a proposed US-led arrangement, the United States would support Israel in waging a full-scale war against Hezbollah, with the aim of destroying the Iranian proxy once and for all.
“Without such an assurance,” Hanegbi and Dermer insisted, Israel’s “northern residents would not gain the sense of security necessary to return to their homes” – a Jerusalem prerequisite for any diplomatic solution.
WASHINGTON must recalculate its strategic approach to the Middle East. It cannot push to de-escalate the region without asking some tough questions on a so-called “strategic day after.” Does the Biden team’s approach benefit US strategic interests for decades to come? Or does it play into the hands of its adversaries, including Iran, Russia, and China?
Despite the Biden-Harris administration’s evident conviction of the former, regional actors, including allies and adversaries alike, are seemingly convinced of the latter.
The only way forward is for Washington to reassert its dominance in the Middle East. To do so, without the need to commit additional military assets to the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR), it should reinvigorate tangible support for its Middle Eastern allies and partners, including Israel, in confronting the so-called Axis of Resistance led by Iran.
The United States must counter Tehran’s grand strategy by pushing for an expansion of the Abraham Accords and reviving military support for its regional partners, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to confront Iran’s regional encroachment via its proxies. Washington must also revitalize its maximum economic pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic proper and enforce its sanctions by all means necessary.
European powers, for their part, must stand in support of the United States by triggering the snap-back mechanism before it expires in October of 2025, aimed at derailing Tehran’s nuclear train as it races at full steam ahead.
As for Israel and the pragmatic Arab camp, they must join forces to implement a campaign of reality-building to push back on Iran’s malign encroachment by effectively inserting much-needed hope for a future of peace and prosperity for all peoples of the Middle East.
The writer is a nonresident senior fellow at the Washington-based Hudson Institute, editor-in-chief of TV7 Israel, and CEO of HGS. He specializes in geostrategy and security issues related to the Middle East and Europe.