Middle East, Israel has launched a full-scale land invasion into southern Lebanon. The offensive marks a significant escalation in Israel’s long-standing conflict with Hezbollah, the powerful Shiite militant group based in Lebanon and backed by Iran. After a weekend in which Israeli airstrikes reportedly killed Hezbollah’s leader, Hasan Nasrallah, and several high-ranking commanders, Israeli forces have now crossed the border in an effort to push Hezbollah fighters back beyond the Litani River, approximately 29 kilometers from Israel’s northern frontier.
The immediate objective of this ground invasion is to facilitate the return of nearly 60,000 displaced Israeli citizens, who were evacuated from northern Israel due to rocket attacks launched by Hezbollah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite facing mounting domestic pressure and a significant portion of the Israeli populace calling for his resignation, appears emboldened by the perceived successes of the current military campaign. He has vowed to replicate the tactics used in the Gaza Strip, where Israel recently undertook a scorched-earth military operation to retaliate against Hamas, a group that shares ideological links with Hezbollah. However, the decision to engage in a ground invasion in Lebanon raises the question: Is Israel repeating the mistakes of the past, or has it learned enough from history to ensure a different outcome this time around?
This is not the first time that Israel has set its sights on Lebanon. In 1982, Israel launched an invasion of Lebanon, advancing as far as the capital, Beirut. At that time, the primary aim was to crush the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was using Lebanon as a base to orchestrate resistance against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—territories seized during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. The PLO’s stronghold in Lebanon was seen as a direct threat to Israeli security.
Although the 1982 invasion did lead to the PLO being forced out of Lebanon and its leadership relocating to Tunisia, the war had far-reaching consequences that Israel may not have anticipated. That same year, Hezbollah was born with backing from the newly established Islamic Republic of Iran. Initially a grassroots resistance movement, Hezbollah rapidly gained strength, both militarily and politically, by positioning itself as the protector of Lebanon’s Shia population and a bulwark against Israeli aggression.
Israel’s alliance with Christian Lebanese forces also proved disastrous for its reputation. During the invasion, Christian militias allied with Israel carried out the infamous massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, killing hundreds of Palestinian civilians under Israeli supervision. The atrocity sparked global condemnation and cemented Hezbollah’s legitimacy as a resistance movement.
Following the initial withdrawal of PLO forces, Israel carved out a “security zone” in southern Lebanon to maintain a buffer against future attacks. Yet Hezbollah continued to resist, mounting a protracted guerrilla campaign that inflicted significant Israeli casualties. In 2000, after nearly two decades of persistent attacks, Israeli forces withdrew unilaterally under then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, marking a victory for Hezbollah and enhancing its stature across the region.
2006 Lebanon War: A Prelude to Today’s Conflict
Tensions between Israel and Hezbollah boiled over again in 2006. After Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, Israel launched a full-scale assault on Lebanon, aiming to dismantle the group once and for all. Despite Israel’s overwhelming firepower, the conflict dragged on for 34 days, resulting in significant casualties and infrastructure damage on both sides.
The 2006 war ended in a United Nations-brokered ceasefire, but it left many of Israel’s goals unmet. Hezbollah survived the conflict not only intact but emboldened, emerging as the “victor” in the eyes of many of its supporters across the Arab world. Once again, Hezbollah’s resilience underscored its capacity to resist one of the world’s most advanced militaries.
The failure of the 2006 campaign has cast a long shadow over Israel’s current military calculations. Netanyahu, however, seems determined to avoid the mistakes of the past by relying on a combination of overwhelming military force and strategic precision.
Netanyahu Doctrine: Strength Through Force
As Israel continues its campaign against Hezbollah, Netanyahu faces a complex political landscape at home. Public opinion in Israel has largely turned against the Prime Minister, with many blaming him for failing to prevent attacks on Israeli civilians and exacerbating long-standing security concerns. Yet Netanyahu has shored up his position by aligning himself with key ministers, including those from the far-right, who demand an uncompromising approach to the conflict.
Israel’s military capabilities have also vastly improved since 2006. In its recent campaign against Hamas in Gaza, Israel showcased its technological and tactical superiority, deploying advanced airstrikes, missile defenses, and ground operations to devastating effect. More than 40,000 civilians were killed in Gaza, with a significant percentage of the victims being children. Despite global outrage and accusations of war crimes, Netanyahu has remained resolute, deflecting international criticism and continuing the campaign unabated.
Bolstered by these successes, Netanyahu is now directing that same military power toward Hezbollah. However, unlike Hamas, Hezbollah is a far more formidable opponent. With an estimated 150,000 rockets and a sophisticated network of underground bunkers and tunnels, the group is well-prepared for a drawn-out war of attrition.
U.S. Support and Geopolitical Implications
Key to Netanyahu’s confidence is the unwavering support of the United States. The Biden administration has reaffirmed its commitment to Israel’s security, providing both military and financial aid. Recently, the U.S. Congress approved an additional $8.7 billion aid package for Israel, specifically aimed at supporting its operations in Lebanon.
This “iron-clad” backing from Washington has allowed Netanyahu to pursue his objectives with little regard for international calls for restraint. The U.S., alongside several of its European allies, has framed Israel’s actions as a necessary measure for self-defense, overlooking the human toll and violations of international humanitarian law. Israel’s undeclared but well-known nuclear capability also provides Netanyahu with additional leverage in the region, serving as a potent deterrent against any potential Iranian involvement.
Indeed, Iran’s role in the conflict cannot be understated. Hezbollah forms a critical part of Iran’s broader “axis of resistance,” which includes other militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Tehran has long viewed Hezbollah as a crucial tool in its geopolitical struggle against Israel and the United States. However, Iran’s response to the current crisis has been measured, with its newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, focused on improving domestic conditions and rebuilding Iran’s international relations, particularly with the West.
While Iran remains a steadfast ally of Hezbollah, there are indications that it may prefer to avoid a direct confrontation with Israel at this stage. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has suggested that Hezbollah is capable of defending itself, signaling that Tehran may opt for a more hands-off approach, allowing the conflict to bleed Israel over time rather than risking a full-scale regional war.
Hezbollah’s Endurance: A War of Attrition?
Though damaged by the loss of key leaders and ongoing Israeli airstrikes, Hezbollah remains a formidable force. Unlike Hamas, which is largely confined to the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah operates across a broader front in southern Lebanon, utilizing difficult terrain to its advantage. Its deep ties to the local population, combined with its military capabilities, make Hezbollah a challenging adversary for Israel to fully defeat.
The group has made clear that it will continue to resist Israeli incursions, signaling the potential for a protracted conflict that could drag on for months or even years. This type of war of attrition would undoubtedly inflict heavy casualties on both sides, but it would likely come at an even higher cost to Israel, especially in terms of international standing and domestic stability.
Israel’s goal of pushing Hezbollah back beyond the Litani River may prove as elusive as its previous attempts to dislodge the group. Moreover, just as it has struggled to eliminate Hamas in Gaza, Israel may find that Hezbollah’s resilience, bolstered by Iranian support, is an even greater challenge to overcome.
Netanyahu’s ambitions, however, extend beyond merely neutralizing Hezbollah. Like many of his predecessors, Netanyahu envisions reshaping the Middle East to align with Israel’s security and political interests. In his mind, a weakened Hezbollah would strike a blow to Iran’s regional influence, thereby reordering the balance of power in favor of Israel and its Sunni Arab allies.
Yet history offers cautionary lessons. When the U.S. attempted to reorder the Middle East under the guise of its post-9/11 “War on Terror,” the result was greater instability, not less. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, intended to promote democracy and eliminate threats, instead led to prolonged chaos and the rise of new militant groups. A similar outcome could await Israel if its current strategy falters.
Netanyahu’s reliance on brute force, without sufficient diplomatic engagement or a long-term political solution, risks exacerbating the very threats Israel seeks to neutralize. As the conflict in southern Lebanon unfolds, the question remains: Can Israel truly secure its borders through military might alone, or is it, once again, setting the stage for a future of endless conflict?
As Israel’s ground invasion of Lebanon continues, the region teeters on the brink of another devastating conflict. While Netanyahu’s government may temporarily gain a tactical advantage, history suggests that the long-term consequences of such actions are far less certain. Hezbollah, though weakened, is not defeated, and Israel faces the very real possibility of being drawn into a costly and prolonged war. The coming weeks and months will reveal whether Netanyahu’s gamble will pay off, or if Israel has once again bitten off more than it can chew.
