With Lebanon, timing is everything

Why now is not the time for a final battle with Hezbollah

One of the great challenges of the current moment is that everyone wants everything now. Like the comedian Ronnie Chieng observes in his Netflix special, even now isn’t immediate enough for many of us. We want everything delivered yesterday. What may be good for Amazon’s revenues, however, often works against us in the world of geopolitics. Especially when it comes to war, and especially when it comes to our current predicament with Lebanon.

First, the facts: Hezbollah has been attacking Israel since October 8, 2023. Bombing towns, villages, factories, alongside military bases. Soccer fields where children play. That Hezbollah is doing so out of Lebanese territory, with the tacit if not active support of the Lebanese government makes it the responsibility of the government of Lebanon to end these attacks or face consequences. If the Lebanese government does not act against Hezbollah – and it hasn’t, so far – it is well within the right of Israel to take measures to put an end to the bombing and those who perpetuate it.

Moreover, the last time a confrontation like this flared up in 2006, the international community and its institutions recognized that Israel acted within its rights and obligations. UN Resolution 1701 was very clear about the terms by which a ceasefire should be maintained. Israel upheld its obligations. Lebanon and Hezbollah did not. In accepting Lebanon’s infractions under 1701, Israel implicitly accepted Hezbollah’s rearming, seeking to “minimize the conflict” much like it did with Hamas on the southern border. It is therefore silly for international officials to call for all parties to abide by 1701 when it really was only one party that broke it, just as it is silly for us to think that allowing Hezbollah to remain in place if and when they agree to a ceasefire is a good idea for Israel in the long-run.

So while I understand the argument many of my friends and colleagues are making for why Israel must go to war with Lebanon to clear out Hezbollah, I believe it is important to pay attention to the vector of time when deciding how and when to take action. Specifically, despite the pain and hardship experienced by the internal refugees who have been forced to leave their homes in the North, I believe it would be wise for Israel to limit its operation today to one that can lead to a ceasefire in order to immediately to switch to a more extensive and sustained strategic operation to finish Hezbollah over the years to come.

Time, in this case, is on Israel’s side.

First, it is expected that the Iron Beam will become operational in 2025. The Iron Beam promises to neutralize the threat from drones and short range munitions that the Hezbollah have so successfully deployed. The more units we deploy, the less of a chance of being goaded into maneuvers on Hezbollah’s terms. Yet to gain the manufacturing capacity and capital required to produce a sufficient number of units we will need to maintain strong relations with Western powers who have the infrastructure and capacity required for mass production. Given the current trajectory of our relations with those powers, it may be wiser for Israel to give up a bit on the Lebanese front today in order to gain the goodwill to build an Iron Wall tomorrow.

Second, the Islamic Republic’s leadership is expected to enter a chaotic period of transition. The current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is 85 years old. Questions about succession have been brewing for years. His chosen successor met an untimely death, and it is entirely possible that runners-up will find themselves in similar circumstances. This uncertainty will occupy more and more of the regime’s attention. The results of the last Iranian election show the deep discontent the Persians have towards the regime, and their desire to improve relations with the West. Given the self-preservation drive of the regime, it may be wiser for Israel to ease its direct confrontation with Iran’s proxy today in order to improve its relations with the Western powers currently negotiating the nuclear deal under the condition that they put pressure on Iran to stop its overseas adventures.

Lastly, the resolution of the conflict in Eastern Europe (which is expected in the coming years) will free up Western manufacturing capacity and mindspace. Getting international support, however, will require Israel to invest heavily in public diplomacy. It will require a concerted effort to win the hearts and minds of a population that has become increasingly anti-Zionist and willing to use all of the legal and political tools in their disposal to block the material needed by the Jewish State. Given that public opinion is so important in these countries (and that it has hit an all-time low due to the campaigns conducted by Hamas’ allies) it may be better for Israel to take a principled stance for the Lebanese people and against Hezbollah, strategically pulling punches so that it may make the case for why the world needs to join it to free Lebanon from Iran.

If we do not want to repeat this conflict with Hezbollah every two decades we will need to lay the foundations for a post-Hezbollah Lebanon. Despite Israel’s extraordinary technological prowess and military capabilities, no one nation no matter how strong can generate that outcome alone. Our goal should be no less than the elimination of Hezbollah as a consequential player in the region, and that will take concerted, coordinated action. Since the road to a Hezbollah-free Lebanon and the decolonization of the Levant will take time to traverse, I believe doing so requires Israel to switch to a slow-and-steady approach as opposed to wanting all the victory, right now.