Despite the official announcement of a ceasefire between the United States and Iran, which Tehran stated included halting aggression against Lebanon, the Israeli occupation launched a heavy assault on Wednesday targeting multiple areas across the country.
Israeli warplanes carried out extensive airstrikes on approximately one hundred sites, hitting residential buildings, apartments, infrastructure, and public streets in Beirut and across eastern and southern Lebanon. Initial reports indicated hundreds of casualties, including both martyrs and wounded.
According to the Lebanese Red Cross, more than 300 people were killed or injured in Beirut and its southern suburbs alone. Many victims remain trapped under rubble, while hospitals are operating beyond capacity.
Rejection of the Agreement
While the occupation frequently attempts to justify its military operations, the timing of this assault, immediately following a ceasefire agreement, raises serious questions. One of Iran’s conditions was a halt to the war on Lebanon.
Israeli affairs analyst Suleiman Bisharat outlined several key explanations for this escalation.
Expressing Rejection of the Iran Agreement
Bisharat explained that Israel is fundamentally dissatisfied with the agreement reached with Iran. Unable to directly oppose a United States decision, it has shifted its response to the Lebanese front as an alternative arena to express rejection and frustration.
Attempt to Pressure Iran
He noted that escalating attacks on Lebanon may serve as a pressure tactic aimed at pushing Iran to violate the agreement, thereby undermining the framework and justifying a continuation of confrontation.
Preventing Unity of Fronts
Another key objective is to prevent any renewed linkage between the Iranian front and the Lebanese front. Israel has previously worked to dismantle what is known as the unity of fronts, particularly after the war on Gaza, and seeks to ensure Lebanon remains isolated from broader regional equations.
Bisharat stressed that Israel is determined to maintain operational freedom in Lebanon, even in the event of a lasting agreement with Iran.
Collective Punishment Strategy
He further described the escalation as part of a collective punishment approach. Despite more than fifteen months of sustained military pressure, Israel has failed to dismantle Hezbollah or eliminate the capabilities of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon.
Attempts by the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah have also not succeeded. On the contrary, Hezbollah has demonstrated a continued ability to project force, reinforcing its position as a future threat to the occupation.
Israel, according to Bisharat, is therefore targeting the broader civilian environment to weaken public support for the resistance by increasing the cost borne by the population.
Reshaping the Lebanese Landscape
Bisharat added that Israel is attempting to impose a new reality in Lebanon, particularly amid concerns that a permanent agreement with Iran could reinforce the linkage between fronts.
By escalating in Lebanon, Israel seeks to turn the Lebanese front into a bargaining tool within negotiations, shaping outcomes in line with its long term strategic objectives.
Internal Lebanese Pressure
Another dimension involves applying pressure within Lebanese society and political structures to accelerate efforts aimed at dismantling Hezbollah’s weapons infrastructure.
Israel fears that Hezbollah’s reassertion as a strong political and military actor within Lebanon could undermine what it considers strategic gains achieved during the conflict.
Minimising Iran’s Achievements
Bisharat also highlighted that Israel is attempting to downplay Iran’s perceived gains. It seeks to prevent any narrative suggesting that Iran successfully shifted regional equations across both the Iranian and northern fronts.
Such a narrative would be difficult for Israel to justify domestically and internationally.
Netanyahu’s Political Calculations
Finally, Bisharat pointed to internal Israeli dynamics, noting that Benjamin Netanyahu has faced criticism for failing to achieve strategic objectives in both the war on Iran and Lebanon.
Netanyahu had previously promised the dismantling of Hezbollah and its military capabilities. However, the group’s continued strength challenges that narrative, prompting attempts to demonstrate renewed military impact for domestic political positioning.
Calls to Reinforce Unity of Fronts
In response to the escalation, Iranian parliament security spokesperson Ebrahim Rezaei stated that closing the Strait of Hormuz should be considered immediately in response to aggression against Lebanon.
He emphasised the need for a decisive response, stating that Lebanon’s sacrifices must not be met with abandonment, and reaffirmed the principle that either a ceasefire applies across all fronts or none at all.
Meanwhile, Fars News Agency reported that Iranian authorities had halted the passage of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz following the ceasefire violation and the massacres in Lebanon.
The agency cited a military source indicating that Iran is preparing deterrent operations targeting Israeli military sites in occupied Palestine, in response to continued violations.
The source added that growing sentiment in Tehran suggests that ongoing Israeli escalation reflects either a failure by the United States to restrain Netanyahu or that United States Central Command has granted Israel operational latitude.
