August 22, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
- In a unified chorus of organisations, political and media voices are warning the Lebanese, suggesting that the decision to launch a war on Lebanon has already been made and that the conflict could begin in the coming days or even hours. This perspective is grounded in the current escalation along the southern front in Lebanon and the northern front in Palestine, as well as remarks by the occupying army’s Minister of War, Yoav Gallant, about preparing to shift the focus of the war from Gaza in the south to Lebanon in the north.
- Everything on the front indicates no signs of preparations for a major war or any significant mobilisation for a ground operation. In any case, the occupying army’s experience in Gaza does not motivate its leadership to confront Hezbollah more harshly. The July 2006 war, when the occupying army was at its full strength and morale while Hezbollah had only a fraction of its current capabilities, demonstrates that the occupying army, which failed disastrously in ground operations then, is even less equipped to engage in a ground war today.
- If the aim of waging war on Lebanon is to target its interior or the environment that supports the resistance, similar to the strategy employed during the July 2006 war, then the occupying entity’s leadership understands that the best opportunity for such actions was immediately after the Al-Aqsa Flood on October 11. At that time, the entity’s cabinet believed in the possibility of a quick victory in Gaza, which would have facilitated a strong offensive on Lebanon, bolstered by a victory in Gaza. This period was ideal in terms of international mobilisation, political support, public unity, and military strength and morale. Since then, while the desire for war has grown, the capacity to execute it has waned.
- The occupying entity’s leadership is fully aware that Hezbollah has the capability to destroy infrastructure on a one-for-one basis—whether an airport for an airport, a port for a port, a power station for a power station, or even a residential tower for a residential tower, and a city for a city. Nevertheless, the resistance refrains from initiating such actions, as it understands that if the occupying entity retaliates in kind, the repercussions would be severe. The occupying entity is also aware that if it is the one who initiates such actions the it will relieve the resistance from this responsibility and the resistance will respond in kind. This balance of terror prevents the mutual destruction of residential and civilian areas.
- Amplifying threats of war is part of a psychological warfare strategy entrusted to certain politicians and media figures, aiming to obscure the timing of Hezbollah’s anticipated response to the attack on Beirut’s southern suburbs, which led to the martyrdom of senior resistance leader Fouad Shukr. With the apparent failure of negotiations, the resistance leadership may now have the freedom to choose the timing of their response without awaiting the outcomes of the Gaza talks.
