Lebanon Between Israeli Military Superiority and the Erosion of Deterrence:
A One-Sided War and Multi-Arena Messages
Ameer Makhoul – Progress Center for Policies
Situation Assessment:
Introduction:
Israel’s targeting of the Harat Hreik area in Beirut’s southern suburbs marks an extremely dangerous turning point in the trajectory of confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah. It reflects Tel Aviv’s shift toward a pattern of “one-sided warfare” conducted within carefully calculated limits, yet open to the risk of uncontrolled escalation. This escalation came with explicit American approval, against the backdrop of growing U.S. frustration with what it calls the Lebanese state’s failure to disarm Hezbollah—evidenced by the cancellation of the Lebanese army commander’s visit to Washington. At the same time, Israel continues unprecedented, intensified strikes, reinforcing its belief that it can impose new rules without provoking a response that might grant Lebanon any deterrent advantage.
Analysis:
Israel currently depends on an almost absolute intelligence and operational superiority that enables it to strike any point in Lebanon with precision. Its strategic assessment is built on Lebanon’s political and institutional disarray, as well as what it reads as a nearly finalized domestic decision to avoid any large-scale confrontation. This interpretation gives Israel broad freedom to continue a policy of “managing a continuous war” at low cost, while portraying itself as the sole actor capable of enforcing security discipline in the face of what it considers the Lebanese state’s and Hezbollah’s inability to craft an effective counter-response.
The sophisticated Israeli operation carried multiple messages. On one hand, Israel aimed to highlight the fragility of Lebanon’s security sovereignty and to signal that the state’s failure to disarm Hezbollah will push Israel to impose its own reality by force. On the other, Israel seeks to underscore that the deterrence equation in place until the summer of 2024 has collapsed, and that any retaliation by Hezbollah would trigger harsher escalation, whereas inaction will be interpreted as weakness that deepens internal pressure on the party. Israel is betting that Hezbollah’s continued restraint will drive Lebanese sectors to demand a redefinition of the state’s role and a restoration of sovereignty—aligned with Israeli goals to reopen sensitive files, including revisiting the ceasefire agreement and expanding demands to areas north of the Litani River.
The messages extend beyond Lebanon to Iran. Israel is signaling that it is ready for a renewed round of confrontation and that it is capable of striking logistical and command structures linked to Tehran, whether in Syria or Lebanon.
The escalation also targets Gaza, conveying that the model Israel is applying in Lebanon—namely, imposing disarmament by force—will likewise be applied in the Strip, as Israel seeks to reshape the security order there, potentially involving international, Arab, or official Palestinian forces.
On the Israeli domestic front, Netanyahu is using this escalation to reinforce the narrative of an open, multi-front war, thereby stalling calls to establish an official commission of inquiry into the failures of October 7.
Israeli assessments suggest that Hezbollah cannot bear the moral and security costs of absorbing such strikes without responding, yet at the same time lacks the capacity to wage a broad confrontation. Israel thus concludes that it wins under all scenarios: if Hezbollah responds, Israel will exploit its military superiority in a controlled battle; if it does not, its inaction will weaken both the party and the state, pushing Lebanon gradually toward Israel’s security demands.
Israeli confidence is further bolstered by the perception that the Trump administration is granting Netanyahu wide latitude contingent on his commitment to the requirements of the American vision for ending the war—reinforcing Israel’s belief that it faces no real international constraints on its operations in Lebanon, Syria, or Gaza.
Conclusions:
The latest developments reveal that Lebanon is facing an extremely dangerous strategic situation in which state fragility intersects with Hezbollah’s shrinking options and Israel’s drive to impose new rules of engagement unilaterally. This reality reflects deep confusion: the Lebanese state lacks the capacity to defend its territory, and Hezbollah lacks both the ability and the domestic legitimacy to respond in a way that alters the equation, while Israel continues consolidating its military dominance with no political solution in sight.
Although Israel is achieving clear tactical gains, it is simultaneously deepening Lebanon’s structural collapse and opening the door to broader regional fractures—especially with its ongoing simultaneous strikes in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. The Israeli threat of “disarmament” functions primarily as a political pressure tool to cement a new balance of power, while the question of Hezbollah’s arms remains fundamentally an internal Lebanese issue—one that can only be resolved through a process that restores state sovereignty and reintegrates Lebanon into diplomatic dynamics, not through externally imposed military arrangements that intensify domestic fragility.
