Is Lebanon Threatened by Israel's General's Plan?

The Bottom Line edition 4 - October 24th 2024

Earlier this month, on 5 October, for the third time since the beginning of the Gaza genocide, Israeli forces imposed a siege on northern Gaza, including the areas of Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahia, Jabalia Refugee Camp and Jabalia Town, completely segregating it from the south.? Since 1 October they have also cut off all humanitarian supplies to the north, leaving people to die if not by bombs, then by forced starvation.

This brutal siege is part of the "General Plan" which would, if successful, “change the reality” on the ground in Gaza, as reportedly describec by retired Israeli General Giora Eiland. He has envisioned emptying northern Gaza of civilians and starving out or killing anyone who stays as a legitimate “target”.? While Israeli media are publicly speaking about Israel’s ambitions to empty and annex northern Gaza, Western media continue to repeat its official talking lines, presenting this third major invasion of the area in terms of “self-defence” to eliminate the regrouped Palestinian resistance. Last month, in a closed meeting between members of the Israeli parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, Eiland proposed this siege plan as an “effective military tactic” to “destroy Hamas”. “What matters to [recently assassinated Hamas leader Yahya] Sinwar is land and dignity, and with this manoeuvre, you take away both land and dignity”, he said.

Is this the scenario Lebanon is heading to ?

It is not news to say that Israel generals are conducting the war. The head of the IDF’s Northern Command Maj. Gen. Ori Gordin and head of the Operations Directorate Maj. Gen. Oded Basiuk approved Lebanon battle plans, the military said, following a recent intensification of cross-border fighting with Hezbollah. In a statement, the IDF said the generals held an assessment, during which “operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon were approved.”The geopolitical landscape in the Middle East remains complex and volatile, and Lebanon’s relationship with Israel continues to play a significant role in shaping the country’s security and political trajectory. Tensions between Lebanon and Israel have persisted for decades, largely driven by unresolved territorial disputes, proxy warfare involving Hezbollah, and broader regional dynamics. In recent months, concerns have risen about plans attributed to Israeli military leadership, particularly those spearheaded by influential Israeli generals.

But what do these plans entail, and do they pose a genuine threat to Lebanon?

Israel's Strategic Objectives

Over recent years, Israeli generals and defense strategists have voiced concerns over Hezbollah's growing capabilities. The group, backed by Iran, is believed to possess over 150,000 rockets and advanced weaponry that could strike deep into Israeli territory. Israel's main strategic objective has been to neutralize Hezbollah’s military threat before it escalates into a larger conflict. While Hezbollah is the primary target of Israeli concern, Lebanon as a whole is often viewed as collateral damage, given that the group’s military presence is deeply intertwined with the country's civilian infrastructure. Israeli military doctrine tends to emphasize preemptive strikes to maintain security superiority. This doctrine has driven past confrontations with Hezbollah and Syria and could shape future policies toward Lebanon. Given recent shifts in Israeli politics and the rising influence of military hardliners, it’s important to examine whether Israeli generals' current strategies place Lebanon in immediate danger.

The General's Plan: What’s on the Table?

There have been various reports about Israeli generals advocating for more aggressive policies toward Lebanon. These strategies often focus on weakening Hezbollah’s capabilities, potentially through airstrikes, targeted military campaigns, or economic sanctions aimed at cutting off the group's support. Israeli officials have emphasized that any future war with Hezbollah would likely involve widespread destruction across Lebanon, as the group embeds itself within civilian areas. A specific aspect of the generals’ plan that has caused alarm is the idea of launching a preemptive strike against Hezbollah to neutralize its missile stockpiles. According to some military experts, Israel may see a window of opportunity to strike Hezbollah before its military capabilities become unmanageable, particularly given the perception that the Lebanese state is too weak or too fractured to restrain Hezbollah. These plans may also be emboldened by recent shifts in regional geopolitics, including normalization deals between Israel and several Arab states. With new alliances and less regional pushback against its military actions, Israel might feel more confident in escalating its military posture toward Lebanon.

In this scenario, Israel's general plan towards aggression in Lebanon unfolds as a multi-phase strategy driven by geopolitical, security, and economic interests. The primary objective is to neutralize perceived threats from Hezbollah, secure energy resources, and maintain regional dominance. The scenario includes military, diplomatic, and economic actions aimed at destabilizing Lebanon, isolating Hezbollah, and reshaping the country's political landscape.

Phase 1: Intelligence and Diplomatic Maneuvering

Israel begins by gathering extensive intelligence on Hezbollah's positions and capabilities. This involves increased surveillance via drones, cyber espionage, and collaboration with foreign intelligence agencies. Concurrently, Israel engages in diplomatic efforts to isolate Hezbollah by lobbying international bodies such as the UN and Western governments, portraying Hezbollah as a global threat due to its ties with Iran and its involvement in conflicts across the region. Israel reaches out to Gulf states, leveraging the Abraham Accords, and fosters alliances with countries that share a mutual interest in weakening Iran's influence. Israel positions its aggression as a defensive move to counter Hezbollah's growing missile arsenal, which it claims threatens regional security.

Phase 2: Economic Pressure and Proxy Warfare

With Lebanon already weakened by its ongoing economic crisis, Israel intensifies its economic warfare. This phase includes covert operations aimed at disrupting key Lebanese infrastructures, such as energy supplies and telecommunications, further exacerbating the nation’s internal strife. Israel also supports local and regional actors to engage in proxy conflicts within Lebanon. By backing groups opposed to Hezbollah and providing financial or military assistance, Israel hopes to create internal fractures, destabilizing Hezbollah’s grip on power.

Phase 3: Limited Military Strikes and Border Engagements

Following months of building up tensions, Israel launches precision airstrikes targeting Hezbollah’s weapons depots, command centers, and logistical hubs in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. These strikes are designed to degrade Hezbollah’s military capabilities without provoking a full-scale war. The justification for these attacks is framed as preemptive self-defense against missile threats. Israel escalates military activity along its northern border, engaging in small-scale skirmishes with Hezbollah fighters. These border incidents are used to test Hezbollah’s response, weaken their defensive infrastructure, and deter future attacks. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) conduct occasional cross-border incursions under the guise of counterterrorism operations. ###

Phase 4: Diplomatic Containment and U.S. Support

Simultaneously, Israel appeals to the international community to intervene diplomatically, seeking to impose sanctions on Lebanon or Hezbollah through the UN Security Council. Israel presses the United States for further diplomatic support and military aid, framing its actions as part of the broader U.S.-led campaign to curb Iranian influence in the region. In exchange for U.S. support, Israel presents itself as a stabilizing force in the Middle East, aiming to protect both regional security and energy routes, especially the newly found gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean. Israel uses this economic angle to ensure the U.S. and European countries see Lebanon’s destabilization as a risk to their energy interests.

Phase 5: Full-Scale Offensive (Contingency)

If the situation escalates—either due to Hezbollah's retaliatory actions or growing tensions—Israel enacts a contingency for a full-scale military offensive. This operation, dubbed "Northern Shield," would involve ground forces penetrating southern Lebanon to create a buffer zone, securing key areas up to the Litani River. The objective is to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities severely, while also avoiding prolonged occupation. Israel's air and naval forces would carry out extensive bombing campaigns targeting Lebanon’s military infrastructure, while a media narrative is shaped to present these actions as necessary to dismantle terrorist networks. Civilian casualties and damage are blamed on Hezbollah using civilians as human shields.

Phase 6: Post-Conflict Strategy and Influence

In the aftermath of the aggression, Israel pushes for an international peacekeeping force to be stationed in Lebanon’s south, ensuring that Hezbollah cannot re-arm easily. Israel works with international actors to support a political restructuring in Lebanon that marginalizes Hezbollah and aligns the country more closely with Western and Gulf Arab interests. Economically, Israel benefits from Lebanon’s weakened state by solidifying control over Eastern Mediterranean gas fields, asserting dominance in energy trade routes, and positioning itself as a key energy supplier to Europe.

Potential Outcomes

• Hezbollah weakened but not destroyed, retaining its political influence but with significantly diminished military capabilities.
• Lebanon’s political fragmentation worsens, with various factions vying for power, creating a vacuum that Israel exploits to ensure its security interests.
• Regional re-alignment sees Lebanon more isolated, with Israel solidifying its ties with the Gulf and the U.S. while marginalizing Iran’s influence in the country.
• Economic control over gas reserves in the Mediterranean ensures Israel's energy independence and geopolitical leverage over Europe and Lebanon. This scenario outlines a calculated and multi-faceted Israeli strategy to manage the Hezbollah threat, safeguard its security, and expand its influence in the region at Lebanon’s expense.

Lebanon’s Response and Capabilities

Given Lebanon’s current state of disarray, the country is in no position to withstand another full-scale conflict. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), while competent, are no match for Israel’s military might, and they have generally avoided direct confrontation with Israel in the past. The LAF’s primary focus has been on internal security and counterterrorism operations, leaving the defense of Lebanon’s southern border largely to Hezbollah. This reliance on Hezbollah for national defense is a double-edged sword. While Hezbollah provides a deterrent against Israeli aggression, it also makes Lebanon a target. Any future conflict between Hezbollah and Israel would almost certainly result in significant destruction across Lebanon, as Israeli military planners have made it clear they view much of Lebanon as a battlefield. Lebanon’s political leaders have repeatedly called for restraint and de-escalation, urging both Israel and Hezbollah to avoid provocations that could lead to war. However, with Hezbollah wielding significant influence over Lebanese politics, the country’s leaders may find it difficult to rein in the group if it decides to escalate tensions with Israel.

The Role of the International Community

The international community, particularly the United States and the United Nations, will likely play a critical role in preventing any future conflict between Lebanon and Israel. In the past, international diplomacy has helped broker ceasefires and agreements that have temporarily reduced tensions. However, the international community's ability to mediate future conflicts may be limited by shifting global priorities and a growing weariness of involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts. Should a new war erupt between Lebanon and Israel, it is unclear whether international actors would be able or willing to intervene swiftly enough to prevent widespread destruction. The international community may also be divided on how to respond, particularly if Israel presents its actions as part of a broader campaign against Iranian influence in the region.

Conclusion: A Fragile Peace at Risk Lebanon is undoubtedly in a precarious position. The plans reportedly advocated by Israeli generals could lead to devastating consequences for Lebanon if they are put into action. While the primary target of these plans is Hezbollah, the entire country would suffer the consequences of another war. Lebanon’s political instability, economic crisis, and reliance on Hezbollah for national defense make it especially vulnerable to external threats, particularly from Israel. The future of Lebanon-Israel relations will depend largely on the actions of key players both within Lebanon and in Israel. As long as Hezbollah remains a potent force within Lebanon, and as long as Israeli generals continue to advocate for aggressive policies, the threat of conflict will loom large over the region. International diplomacy and regional alliances will be crucial in maintaining the fragile peace that exists today.