Israel’s assault on Lebanon: What’s really behind it

Beyond Hezbollah, the offensive reflects deeper geopolitical ambitions and internal pressures Shortly after US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between the US and Iran, tensions escalated dramatically on the Israeli-Lebanese front. Israel declared that it was launching strikes in Lebanese territory to counter Hezbollah. The strikes primarily targeted urban infrastructure, including areas in Beirut. In the first 24 hours of the Israeli operation, civilian casualties exceeded 250 people. Israel’s official stance is that the operation is aimed against Hezbollah, which it considers a terrorist organization. However, multiple strikes on urban infrastructure raise doubts that the attacks were directed solely against military targets. While the families of its supporters may reside in some neighborhoods, Hezbollah forces typically avoid urban environments and don’t use civilian infrastructure for military purposes. Moreover, Israel’s actions exert additional pressure on the (already challenging) negotiation track between the US and Iran. Any escalation in Lebanon automatically involves Tehran as Hezbollah’s key ally. Iran immediately condemned Israel’s strikes – according to Tehran, the ceasefire announced by Trump was supposed to extend to Lebanon. Consequently, the US, as Israel’s ally, was responsible for the strikes against Beirut. The negotiations held between the US and Iran in Islamabad were also connected to the situation in Lebanon. Iran’s position is clear: It considers Lebanon a zone of its strategic interests and is unwilling to exclude it from the negotiating agenda. Washington, however, is not prepared to accept this configuration. The White House aims to diminish Tehran’s geopolitical influence and prevent it from emerging as a winner in this political game. Read more Karaganov: How Russia can win the new world war Israel’s actions are driven not only by foreign policy considerations but also by domestic political and legal factors.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position remains vulnerable due to ongoing criminal proceedings. Military de-escalation will likely lead to increasing domestic political pressure, including the acceleration of judicial proceedings, the mobilization of the opposition, and an escalation of internal conflicts between the elites. At the end of April, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and opposition leader Yair Lapid merged their factions into a single list. This development suggests that the ruling Likud party, led by Netanyahu, could be at risk of splitting due to significant internal disagreements. Consequently, for Netanyahu, the ongoing external crisis serves as a means of preserving the existing political balance. Military engagement in Lebanon also aligns with Israel’s broader strategy to contain regional proxy structures linked to Iran. Weakening Hezbollah could potentially reduce Tehran’s ability to project power in the eastern Mediterranean. The strategic interests of Israel and the US are aligned on this issue: Both are interested in limiting Iran’s regional influence by means of weakening its allies. Prior to launching extensive strikes on Lebanon, Netanyahu addressed residents in northern Israel and stressed that a ceasefire is not being discussed. He stated that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would continue to target Hezbollah “at full scale” until the safety of the population is ensured. He also described his strategy as ‘peace through strength’, causing dissatisfaction in Washington. Read more Here’s where Washington and the rest of the world diverge According to Axios and the New York Post, Washington has urged the Israeli leadership to at least reduce the intensity of military operations in Lebanon. The strikes jeopardize direct negotiations with