Assassination of Hassan Nasrallah and its Implications
The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah was a
severe blow not only to Hezbollah but to Iranian-backed proxies across the
region. Hezbollah, as Iran’s closest ally and a key deterrent force, served as
the central pillar of Tehran’s “axis of resistance.” For Israel, this move was
a bold escalation. The assassination, followed by a limited ground invasion
into Lebanon, prompted retaliation from Iran, with nearly 200 ballistic
missiles launched at military targets in Israel.
Since October 7 of last year, Israel has
consistently escalated its confrontation with Hamas’s regional backers,
including Iran and Hezbollah. Over the past year, Israel has systematically
targeted top operatives of Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC), steadily weakening Iranian influence. This has been underpinned by
Israel's belief that Iran is hesitant to engage in a full-scale war with them.
Despite the risks, Israel felt decisive military action was necessary to manage
and contain the threats along its borders.
Shifting
Focus: Israel Targets Hezbollah and Iran
As the war in Gaza progresses, Israel has now
shifted its focus to Hezbollah and Iran. Recent Israeli attacks in both Iran
and Lebanon highlight the extent of Israel’s intelligence penetration into
Iranian and Hezbollah networks, along with its technological superiority.
Israel’s growing confidence in its intelligence capabilities has led to
increasingly bold military operations.
Risks of a
Wider War
The possibility of a broader regional
conflict, including a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran, was always
a concern. Hezbollah entered the conflict by launching cross-border attacks on
northern Israel on October 8, prompting Israeli counterattacks. The violence
displaced tens of thousands of civilians on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon
border, raising the specter of a regional war.
Initially, many believed that the conflict on
the northern front could be contained, as neither side wanted a full-scale war.
Hezbollah limited its attacks to targets near the border, in line with informal
rules of engagement. However, as fighting in Gaza continued, both Israel and
Hezbollah tested the boundaries, launching deeper strikes into each other’s
territory. While casualties increased, the conflict remained manageable for a
time.
The risk of a full-scale war was ever-present,
especially due to potential miscalculations. An attack by either side could
result in unintended casualties, forcing escalation. This was illustrated by
Israel’s attack on an Iranian diplomatic facility in Damascus in early April,
killing top Iranian commanders. Iran retaliated with its first-ever direct
missile strike on Israel, though a US-led coalition quickly contained the
escalation. However, the potential for rapid intensification remains.
Israel’s
Expanding Military Strategy
Israel’s strategic shift toward escalating
attacks on Hezbollah, even while focused on Gaza, is significant. It reflects a
growing concern over an active Hezbollah presence on its northern border.
Israel may have assessed that Hezbollah and Iran were reluctant to push too far
militarily, thus feeling emboldened to strike hard.
Before Iran’s latest missile attack, Israel
signaled that it only intended to conduct limited military operations in
Lebanon, avoiding a full-scale occupation of southern Lebanon. However, the
history of conflict between the two sides suggests that war is unpredictable.
Hezbollah, despite being weakened, is likely to mount significant resistance,
and the conflict could intensify further, especially with a backdrop of
Israeli-Iranian confrontation.
Iranian
Dilemma and Response
Iran faces a dilemma over how to respond to
Nasrallah’s death and Israel’s targeting of Hezbollah. Iran’s response to the
killing of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July demonstrated caution, indicating a
reluctance to escalate the conflict into a wider regional war. Analysts, such
as General Syed Ata Hasnain and Ambassador Talmiz Ahmed, have noted Iran’s
calculated and restrained responses, aimed more at showing capacity than
provoking full-scale conflict.
However, Israel’s recent attacks have
increased pressure within Iran to respond more forcefully and support its
proxies openly. Leaders in Tehran may have concluded that Israel was prepared
to attack Iran directly, emboldened by Hezbollah’s weakened state. Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reinforced this view, stating on September 30,
“There is nowhere in the Middle East Israel cannot reach.” This prompted Iran
to launch another missile strike on Israel on October 1, targeting military
facilities in populated areas. Israel’s missile defense systems, supported by
US military assistance, successfully repelled the attack. Yet, if such attacks
intensify, they may strain Israel’s defense capabilities.
Israel’s
Pursuit of Total Victory
Netanyahu has made it clear that Iran “would
pay” for the recent attack. Israeli retaliation is nearly inevitable, but the
extent of this response remains uncertain. Israel could target more IRGC
commanders or political leaders in Iran, or even strike oil installations or
nuclear facilities. Each of these options carries significant risks.
Alternatively, Israel may opt for a limited,
targeted strike, as it did in April, allowing both sides to de-escalate. A key
factor in this decision could be US resistance to expanding the war.
Iranian-aligned militia forces in Iraq have threatened to target US personnel
if the US intervenes, and President Joe Biden is unlikely to seek direct
conflict with Iran with the upcoming presidential elections. However, in war,
nothing is certain.
Potential
Escalation and Regional Implications
There is also speculation that Iran, facing
the degradation of its proxy forces, might shift toward weaponizing its nuclear
program, further raising the stakes. Such a move would almost certainly invite
Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, escalating the conflict further.
Meanwhile, Israeli forces remain entrenched in
Gaza, controlling key strategic areas like the Philadelphi Corridor on the
Egyptian border. In the West Bank, Israeli settlement expansion continues,
while incursions into Palestinian cities such as Jenin and Tulkarm have
increased as Palestinian Authority control weakens.
Israel’s ground movement into Lebanon may
signal a push to reinstate a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, similar to the
one established after Israel’s 1982 invasion. Continued operations could lead
to the reoccupation of parts of Gaza, the West Bank, or southern Lebanon,
intensifying the regional conflict.
A Region in Crisis
The situation today is one of continued
violence, rising death tolls, and humanitarian disaster. Israeli hostages
remain in Gaza, while escalating attacks blur the lines of escalation norms. In
this environment, international diplomatic efforts, including calls for a
ceasefire, appear unlikely to succeed.
Some analysts suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political survival hinges on the continuation of war. Israel’s tacit approval from the US has emboldened its military actions, but continued conflict and occupation will only prolong instability. As history in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown, prolonged military conflicts harm all sides involved. and a change in Iran’s leadership, peace will remain elusive
No comments:
Post a Comment