Israel’s Lebanon strategy risks undermining our best allies – opinion

Israel’s announcement that it would withdraw from southern Lebanon this past week, as agreed upon, except for five outposts that will remain under its control indefinitely, is a correct and necessary decision. However, it could severely undermine the legitimacy of the new government of Nawaf Salam and President Joseph Aoun, potentially leading to a renewed military confrontation below the threshold of war between Israel and Hezbollah.

In January, a carefully orchestrated political upheaval took place in Lebanon. Billionaire and Hezbollah supporter Najib Mikati was replaced by Joseph Aoun, a figure trusted by Saudi Arabia, the US, and France. 

Aoun secured a parliamentary majority with 99 votes, including the surprising support of the Amal-Hezbollah bloc following a secret meeting, after which they announced their backing for him.

Aoun’s election was the result of a carefully planned maneuver involving significant pressure on all Lebanese political players, primarily by US envoy Amos Hochstein and Saudi envoy Prince Yazid bin Farhan, representing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). These emissaries ensured that everyone understood the expectations from Washington and Riyadh. 

Notably, on former president Joe Biden’s last day in office, the US transferred $117 million to support the Lebanese army – both to bolster its capabilities and to strengthen the positions of Aoun and newly elected Prime Minister Salam.

For weeks, tough negotiations took place to form a new government under Salam. Despite US and Saudi statements that Hezbollah would have no place in the new administration, the Shi’ite bloc ultimately secured five key ministerial portfolios, including finance and health, as expected.

Concurrently with Lebanon’s internal political developments, Lebanon and Israel – through the mediation of the “Committee of Five” – agreed to a 60-day ceasefire, after which Israel was to withdraw. As the deadline approached, Hezbollah organized “popular” return protests, resulting in the deaths of 23 Lebanese demonstrators. Following the violence, the ceasefire agreement was extended, pushing back the withdrawal deadline.

To date, Hezbollah has been the only entity providing direct financial relief to the affected Lebanese population, distributing approximately $400 m. – funded by Iran – as a form of de facto Lebanese property compensation. 

In contrast, under the Trump administration, the US halted all aid to countries except Israel and Egypt, leaving Aoun financially exposed and reliant on American and Saudi support, which would be contingent on his ability to implement significant reforms in Lebanon.

In recent days, as the extended deadline for Israel’s withdrawal approaches, all parties involved have issued strong warnings against another postponement. Aoun and Salam have pressed the “Committee of Five” to ensure Israel honors its commitments. Even Saad Hariri, as he moves to re-enter Lebanese politics, warned of a creeping Israeli reoccupation.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem, who Iran has appointed as its representative in Lebanon, placed full responsibility for the Israeli withdrawal on the Lebanese government, insisting it must occur precisely on schedule. 

Qassem reaffirmed the legal and moral justification for Hezbollah’s “resistance,” despite the plans of Salam’s government to omit this principle from its official platform. On this matter, there is a rare, broad Lebanese consensus across political factions, potentially paving the way for Hezbollah to resume its active “resistance” under national – not merely Iranian – pretexts.

A recent incident further strained tensions: the torching of a UNIFIL vehicle by Hezbollah supporters drew widespread condemnation domestically and internationally, embarrassing the Lebanese government. Additionally, protests by Hezbollah supporters at Beirut Airport over the Iranian-Lebanese flight crisis – resulting in tear gas dispersals and several arrests – sparked Hezbollah’s anger.

 Bringing Lebanon into the Abraham Accords 

The group views these actions as signs that the US-Saudi plan to bring Lebanon into the Abraham Accords under Aoun-Salam’s leadership is taking shape at the expense of Lebanon’s national dignity. This airport incident even created a rift within the Shi’ite bloc itself, as evidenced by Amal leader Nabih Berri’s swift condemnation of the violence – at Hezbollah’s expense.

All these developments – combined with Israel’s recent airstrike in Lebanon targeting a senior Hamas figure, ongoing Israeli violations of what Hezbollah sees as its red lines, and Hezbollah’s planned grand show of force at the anticipated funeral of its former leader Hassan Nasrallah – signal that the terrorist organization may soon act against Israel’s presence in Lebanon.

Such actions are expected to remain below the threshold of full-scale war, which no faction in Lebanon desires. Nevertheless, they could enable Hezbollah to restore its battered image, reassert its position as the defender of Lebanon’s national interest (distinct from Iranian interests), and reclaim its role as the central force of “resistance” in the country.

The writer is a Middle East expert and a former lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and Netanya Academic College.