After Iran’s drone attack, Hezbollah is preparing for all scenarios

A mine exploded near the Lebanese-Israeli border, injuring four Israeli soldiers from the Golani Brigade.

Six months into the war, this development may seem insignificant.

However, after Iran’s unprecedented attack on Israel on Saturday, signs of escalation on Lebanon’s southern front should be followed closely.

This is especially true as the explosion occurred on the Lebanese side of the border, indicating that the Israelis have crossed the Blue Line, the demarcation line.

The Israeli army announced on Monday that four soldiers were injured on Lebanese territory after Hezbollah claimed to have activated “explosive devices.”

This is the first time that Hezbollah has announced carrying out such an operation.

“We confirm that the incident occurred inside Lebanon,” an Israeli army spokesman told AFP.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah explained that it had “placed explosives in the Tal Ismail area,” near the Israeli border, which blew up after the Israeli soldiers “crossed the border.”

This type of incident could potentially become more common. Well-informed sources suggested that Hezbollah is actively placing mines along the border strip in anticipation of potential Israeli infiltration.

In the wake of heightened tensions over the weekend, the focus now shifted to how Israel will react to the attack in Tehran.

According to a Western diplomatic source who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, “Tel Aviv is weighing its options.”

A significant military retaliation affecting Iranian territory is being considered. However, considerable international pressure aims to prevent direct conflict between the two adversaries.

This could potentially make Israel resort to security operations and targeted assassinations, both within Iran and abroad. Israel may find itself unable to directly confront Iran without the support of the US, who may not share the same perspective.

In this scenario, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might redirect his focus toward Lebanon, specifically targeting Hezbollah.

As Iran showcased its military prowess on Saturday, diplomatic circles asserted that it is also providing Hezbollah with access to its full array of military and technological capabilities, particularly the long-range precision missiles employed in the recent retaliation.

Should these missiles be launched from southern Lebanon, they would pose a significantly heightened threat to Israel due to their reduced flight time. Consequently, negotiations in the forthcoming phase are expected to center around this critical issue.

Some speculated that Tel Aviv would push for the removal of these missiles. Others argued that it may find it necessary to escalate military operations against Hezbollah to dismantle its missile stockpiles and shift the balance of power in its favor before pursuing diplomatic resolutions.

When?

Lebanon received further Israeli messages through various channels indicating that the Netanyahu government is increasingly leaning toward a scorched-earth policy. This is evidenced by the escalating destructive attacks targeting specific villages and public roads in the border region.

Notably, these attacks occurred along the road connecting Dhaira to Alma Shaab, as well as in the vicinity of Yarin, Houla and other border villages.

Additionally, the Israeli messages contained new threats of expanding the conflict.

In the absence of a diplomatic resolution, Israel may intensify its airstrikes and broaden its scope of engagement. Recent strikes targeted Nabi Sheet in the Bekaa area, as well as the Jezzine Heights, particularly Jabal Safi, Jabal Rihan and Sojod.

“These are mere attempts at intimidation, yet Hezbollah has taken all necessary measures to prepare for any unforeseen developments,” a source closely associated with the party affirmed.

According to consistent diplomatic sources, the likelihood of a negotiated settlement is steadily diminishing.

“A broadening of the confrontation seems unavoidable; only the timing remains uncertain,” added the previously cited Western diplomat.

Israel aims to deter Hezbollah from launching future attacks against Israel.

Moreover, the Israelis are growing more concerned about Hezbollah’s tunnels in southern Lebanon and are actively pursuing their elimination, a task seemingly impractical through airstrikes alone.

Amidst the pessimism among diplomats, Iran and Hezbollah seem to opt for a more optimistic outlook.

They contend that following the US intervention, Netanyahu has become “a captive of the Biden administration,” which has made him realize the extent of reliance on the American military to mitigate potential losses for his country.

Indeed, as Iran dispatched a fleet of drones and missiles toward Israeli territory on Saturday night, coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv reached its pinnacle.

The US took direct measures to defend Israel, in collaboration with the UK and France, who assisted in intercepting the drones and missiles.

According to available information, the US activated all its defense systems in Cyprus and at sea facing Israel to counter this attack, intercepting drones and missiles over Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

This scenario could potentially allow the US to exert pressure on the Israeli prime minister to reconsider his approach and opt for a humanitarian ceasefire in the Gaza Strip instead of escalating toward a regional conflict.

On the other hand, according to American sources, Netanyahu aims to leverage the unprecedented Iranian strike to further radicalize the stance of the entire Western world toward Iran. He seeks to portray Iran as a “malicious state” with which cooperation is deemed impossible.

Nevertheless, the Biden administration persists in urging its ally not to retaliate against Tehran’s attack.

A ‘turning point’ or a ‘carefully staged show?’

At the time of the Iranian drone attack, Hezbollah remained on high alert, anticipating the potential consequences.

The party, however, swiftly distanced itself from the attack, seemingly to convey to both the Lebanese population and foreign capitals that it was not aligning itself with Iran in this conflict. Rather, its actions in the south were framed as motivated by the “defense of Lebanon” and “solidarity with Gaza.”

Furthermore, the Iranians were insistent on conducting the strike independently from their territory, a significant development considering it marked Iran’s first direct attack on Israel.

Allies of Tehran emphasized Iran’s bravery in “keeping Israel, the US, Great Britain and France occupied” for several days amidst this assault.

Over 30 years after Saddam Hussein’s bombing of Israel following the Gulf War, many observers perceived the Iranian response as a “turning point” that solidified the Islamic Republic’s deterrent capabilities and served as a significant blow to Israel.

Conversely, the opposing camp viewed it as a mere “show,” citing that while the Iranian strikes were indeed spectacular, they ultimately failed to hit their intended targets in Israel. Furthermore, these strikes were coordinated with regional countries and announced in advance, leading some to question their true efficacy.

Before launching its strike, Iran engaged in challenging negotiations with the Americans, conducted in various locations such as Oman and New York.

Initially, Tehran demanded pressure on Netanyahu to halt the war in Gaza, offering to forgo its retaliation in response to the attack on its consulate in Damascus in return.

Subsequently, the Iranians intended to resume talks with the US regarding the nuclear issue and sought to ease the sanctions.

However, neither the Americans nor Israel accepted Iran’s conditions. This led Tehran to negotiate a limited retaliation against Israel in exchange for a guarantee that Tel Aviv would refrain from seeking retribution — a concession the Israelis were unwilling to make.

According to concordant diplomatic sources, Iran additionally suggested convening a session of the United Nations Security Council to denounce the Israeli strike on its consulate.

Iran could have settled for this principled stance.

Its Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, reached out to several Western foreign ministers to communicate this position, but to no avail.

As negotiations failed, Iran remained steadfast in its determination to carry out a strike against Israel, stopping short of declaring war.

Sources close to the Iranian officials revealed that a decision was made to conduct a public and forceful response, targeting solely military installations.

By refraining from targeting civilians and publicly announcing its attack, Iran aimed to demonstrate its capacity to make daring decisions and strike Israel decisively.

These sources further disclosed that Iran weighed numerous options, including targeting an Israeli diplomatic mission, striking Israeli positions in the Golan Heights or the Red Sea, conducting assassinations within Israel, or even orchestrating a broader assault with the assistance of allied forces from various supporting fronts.

However, the Iranians purportedly concluded that assassinations would be time-consuming and lacking in public impact, while orchestrating an operation through allies could potentially escalate into an unwanted regional conflict.

Regarding a strike from Syria into the Golan Heights, this option proved challenging due to the Bashar al-Assad regime’s refusal to permit the use of Syrian territory for such military operations.

Once the decision for retaliation had been settled, the Iranians assured the Americans that they would retaliate against any substantial Israeli strike and pledged not to remain passive, even if it meant igniting a full-fledged war.

This article was originally published in L'Orient-Le Jour. Translated by Sahar Ghoussoub.