The recent Israeli campaign against Hezbollah has surprised military strategy experts with its intensity and the scale of its targets. Some consider it unprecedented, describing it as the largest and most powerful in history.
The most likely explanation for this ferocity is Israel’s assessment of Hezbollah’s strength and its potential to inflict serious damage on Israel. Despite initiating the attack, Israel appeared considerably fearful, racing against time to strip Hezbollah of its capabilities by destroying missile sites, forces, and logistical routes. The objective was clear: weaken Hezbollah’s options and force it into submission, compelling it to preserve what remains of its combat power.
Israel claimed that, on the first day alone, it eliminated half of Hezbollah’s capabilities, which includes the destruction of tens of thousands of rockets and weapons depots deep within Lebanon. Predictably, Hezbollah sources denied these claims, hinting that the group’s restrained response was calculated. Insiders suggest that Hezbollah’s upcoming responses will shock Israel and push it to seek urgent negotiations with the group.
In the initial evaluation of the conflict, Israel seems to have the upper hand, having hit a wide range of targets. Prior to this, bombings, assassinations of Hezbollah’s elite, and Israel’s precision strikes suggest that Hezbollah had been under Israeli surveillance for a long time. It remains unclear whether this was due to Hezbollah’s security lapses, allowing Israel to gather such extensive intelligence, or whether Hezbollah’s growing regional ambitions, particularly in Syria, exposed it to security breaches.
However, Hezbollah’s major tactical misstep appears to have been its reliance on the rules of engagement it believed it had set in place against Israel. The group assumed these would deter Israel’s leadership from waging war on Lebanon. Hezbollah, confident in its deterrence power, felt secure. Moreover, it calculated that Israel, already exhausted from its nearly year-long war in Gaza, would not dare start another conflict.
Another potential error lies in Hezbollah’s decision not to capitalize on Hamas’s attack on Israel. Despite having pre-prepared plans to launch an offensive on Galilee and a trained force for the task, Hezbollah hesitated. According to many military experts, had Hezbollah acted, Israel would have found itself in a real predicament. Although the US moved its fleets in fear of such a scenario, it is certain that both America and Israel would have been forced into negotiations, given Israel’s limited strategic depth and Hezbollah’s capacity to control vast areas during the shock and confusion caused by Hamas’s attack on October 7th of last year.
Some might argue that if Hezbollah had acted, it would have risked provoking Israel into using its full military strength. However, it’s evident that Israel quickly adapted to Hezbollah’s limited engagement, aimed at supporting Gaza, and was not significantly hindered in its campaign. Netanyahu also managed to withstand pressure from northern settlers through delay tactics, waiting for more favorable conditions to open a second front in the north.
Now, that’s all in the past. The focus should be on how Lebanon can emerge with the least losses. It is clear that Hezbollah’s ability to escalate and pressure Netanyahu to halt the war is limited, especially with the looming threat of southern Beirut’s destruction, and potentially Lebanon as a whole. Netanyahu perceives this as an opportunity to eliminate Hezbollah’s threat, supported by an international environment that is indifferent to Hezbollah’s fate and weak regional allies who are unable to provide decisive assistance.
Given this, Hezbollah should take advantage of diplomatic opportunities, including the 1701 Resolution, which offers a platform for negotiations. One avenue could be to push for stricter enforcement of the ban on Israeli air violations over Lebanon. Since the implementation of the resolution is Israel’s pretext for its actions and a way to silence international criticism of its war against Lebanon, Hezbollah could leverage this to its advantage. At this point, any further tactical miscalculation would be catastrophic.
