“Take a breath and relax”. Taking the advice given by Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary-General of Hezbollah, to the people of Lebanon is certainly a tall order for a country that has just witnessed the largest cross-border exchange of fire between Israel and Hezbollah since the full-scale war of July 2006.
On Sunday morning, Israel fired over one hundred missiles into southern Lebanon in what it described as a “pre-emptive strike” against over forty Hezbollah positions, killing three of their fighters. Having denied the IDF’s claim that it had foiled a large missile strike, the Iranian-backed Shia militant group went on to launch over three hundred Soviet-era rockets and multiple drones deep into northern Israel, targeting Mossad Headquarters and ten other military intelligence sites near Tel Aviv. This was a clear retaliation for the assassination of their military chief, Fuad Shukr, in July. The IDF reported that one Israeli sailor was killed by missile debris.
As the dust begins to settle, political analysts have begun speculating en masse as to whether this seemingly escalatory development constitutes the perilous step closer to the wider conflagration which the world has feared since October.
Bizarrely, the overriding impression is that it does not. The relatively inconsequential nature of the attacks has led to their characterisation as performative. Specifically, many view the attack as indicating careful calculation on the part of Hezbollah. By avoiding civilian casualties and remaining within the confines of carefully managed conflict, an escalatory situation similar to that of the Golan Heights in late July has seemingly been avoided.
The hallmarks of a knock-out assault seem to be absent: both Israel and Hezbollah are reporting limited damage and minimal casualties, none of whom were civilians. Perhaps optimistically, many suggest this indicates two powers exercising underlying restraint, playing tit-for-tat whilst consciously avoiding a wider full-scale Middle Eastern conflict.
In this regard, Nasrallah’s most recent speech is important. He made clear that Hezbollah had no firm further plans for action against Israel and seemed intent on reducing tensions: “if we are satisfied with these results, we will consider our response complete for now”. However, the Secretary-General’s words were not entirely without threat. Teasingly, he raised the possibility of further attacks by describing the actions taken on Sunday as the end of the “first phase”. Surely this leaves the door wide open for a second round? For now, however, it seems Hezbollah is awaiting Israel’s next move: “we will monitor […] how the enemy responds”.
By way of an initial response, Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defence minister, stressed the “importance of avoiding regional escalation”, whilst Israel Katz, the foreign minister, established that Israel must only “act according to developments on the ground”. The tone of both is distinctly measured – and forms a striking contrast with the Israeli Prime Minister’s response. Addressing his cabinet, Benjamin Netanyahu was careful not to rule out further action. Some believe that he is set on proving himself as a defender of national security and, to that end, is looking for any justification to escalate the conflict. For his critics, Netanyahu’s actions are motivated by a desire to avoid a corruption prosecution and retain his political power. With the threat of elections looming, in many ways Netanyahu’s political survival depends on continuing the war.
Netanyahu’s belief that a ceasefire would be a show of weakness, and his advocating a decisive strike against Iran, demonstrates where he truly stands. Implacably opposed to the continuing existence of Hamas, who tauntingly described Hezbollah’s actions as a “slap in the face” for Israel, is it likely that Netanyahu will be able to resist a full-blown military response? His definitive proclamation that “what happened today is not the end of the story”, and the pride with which he described Israel’s “surprising crushing blows” to Hezbollah, indicate a man buoyed by conflict and keen to put his foot down.
Netanyahu’s belligerence underpins the persistent high tension in the region, generating anxiety that there may be further attacks to come. Israel continues to operate as if no resolution will ever be reached, its declared position being that they “are ready at any moment for war in the north, whatever may come”. For his part, the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, has declared that he is “deeply concerned” about the regional security and stability threat that these developments pose – a stance that is surely justified.
For now, the war of narratives continues. Israel’s claim, rejected by Hezbollah, that the militia group had been planning to fire thousands rather than hundreds of rockets is significant. Indeed, they may manipulate this assertion to justify intensifying their response. By presenting the events of the weekend as a massive Hezbollah attack foiled by Israeli and US intelligence, rather than a carefully calibrated attack that purposefully avoided escalation, Netanyahu may yet try to argue for further strikes. Whether he grasps this opportunity remains to be seen.
Yet Netanyahu is not the only player in the game. The world is still holding its breath for an Iranian response to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, in late July. The events of the weekend may well inform the severity of the Israeli response – if or when Iran strikes. With a fatal risk posed by the slightest miscalculation, and the failure once again of the latest round of peace negotiations to reach a final agreement, no one will be relaxing just yet.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Khamenei.ir
No image changes made.
コメント