Chasing Nasrallah
The US can prevent an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah. Oh the irony!
Over the past few weeks, the prospect of an all-out conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon has gone from a distant murmur to a near roar, threatening to further upend the Middle East. The past week’s events have injected a new level of volatility into this already precarious situation, but the United States, with its storied history of diplomatic finesse (insert eye roll here), has a few cards up its sleeve to prevent this powder keg from erupting into a white-hot regional war.
Picture this: Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, suggests that Israel might use force to quash Hezbollah. Meanwhile, Israel’s far-right ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, openly call for an invasion of Lebanon. These gentlemen, whose political acumen rivals that of a bull in a china shop, seem determined to push the region to the brink.
But let’s not forget Hezbollah, which also has a role to play in this drama. Given Washington's rather tepid success in influencing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's strategy in the war with Hamas, it’s high time to scrutinize Hezbollah’s calculations. The Lebanese militant group with a penchant for terrorism finds itself in a bit of a bind. On one hand, it must restore its deterrence capability, which took a hit following Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel. Yet, Lebanon's fragility makes a full-blown conflict highly undesirable. Essentially, Hezbollah is like a poker player with a great hand but no chips to bet. Dexter Filkins recently filed a great report from the field for the New Yorker about the risk of war between Israel and Hezbollah post-October 7. (Spoiler: it was already high).
This past weekend, those unwritten rules of engagement between Israel and Hezbollah were shattered when a rocket killed 12 children at a soccer field in the Druze village of Majdal Shams in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Israel immediately blamed Hezbollah, which denied responsibility, yet the tension skyrocketed. Anxiety has run high in Lebanon, with airlines canceling flights to Beirut anbd the U.S. State Department warning citizens to “develop a crisis plan of action and leave before a crisis begins.” Western and regional diplomats have been scrambling to avoid a full-blown war.
Israel’s subsequent response was swift and severe. Despite warnings by the Biden administration that targeting Beirut could lead to a major escalation, Israel carried out an airstrike in a densely packed neighborhood on the outskirts of Beirut, killing a senior Hezbollah commander responsible for the Golan Heights attack. The strike also claimed the lives of a woman and two children. The Lebanese government was outraged.
A permanent cease-fire between Israel and Hamas could forestall a war in Lebanon. Hezbollah has hinted that if Israel strikes a cease-fire agreement with Hamas in Gaza, it might hold its fire.
Amos Hochstein, Biden’s point man for preventing Israel-Hezbollah clashes from escalating into a wider war, has been shuttling back and forth to the region since the Gaza conflict began, aiming to de-escalate tensions and avert further conflict. Hochstein has been negotiating a plan for months under which Hezbollah would pull back its forces several miles from Israel’s border, possibly in return for U.S. economic aid for southern Lebanon and changes to Israeli military positions. As one of the few Americans said to be grudgingly respected by Hezbollah’s leadership, he has also tried to persuade the group to pressure Hamas into a cease-fire. While Hezbollah publicly denies acquiescence, Hamas’s recent flexibility may suggest Hochstein’s entreaties aren’t falling on deaf ears.
But let’s face it, dear reader, a cease-fire in Gaza isn't likely to materialize before tensions at the Israeli-Lebanese border reach a fever pitch. Hezbollah could accept a cease-fire deal before Hamas does, avoiding an Israeli invasion while restoring normalcy within Lebanon. Yet, this would be a tricky maneuver, akin to walking a tightrope in a hurricane.
Hezbollah’s standing in the “axis of resistance”—that lovely club of Iranian-backed militants—depends on its role as a steadfast opponent of Israel. A deal with Israel that disregards the fate of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank might offer temporary peace but would inevitably lead to a resurgence of violence. Hezbollah’s credibility with its allies, not to mention its status within Lebanon, would suffer.
For decades, Hezbollah and Israel have played a dangerous game of cat and mouse, bound by a complex set of rules of engagement. From 1996 to 2000, the so-called ‘April Understanding’ kept things relatively calm, with both sides avoiding attacks on civilians. This fragile peace shattered in 2006, leading to a devastating war that decimated southern Lebanon. Since then, Hezbollah has been rebuilding, and racking up a decade of gritty combat experience in the Syrian civil war, where they staunchly supported Bashar al-Assad.
By mid-2023, Hezbollah had become the region's formidable phoenix, rising from the ashes of past conflicts with a reinvigorated defense and deterrence arsenal of more than 100,000 rockets. Their military prowess now extended to impressive new aerial and naval capabilities. Furthermore, Hezbollah had crafted a robust regional alliance, partnering with Iraqi, Palestinian, Syrian, and Yemeni factions to coordinate a unified and formidable response to any aggression, thereby significantly enhancing its deterrence against Israel.
Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader—considered charismatic or diabolical, depending on where you sit—has managed to elevate the group’s status in the region, transforming it into a key player in the Iranian axis. Despite tensions, Nasrallah has maintained a semblance of cold peace with Israel, warning against any assassinations on Lebanese soil. However, the October 7 attack by Hamas and Israel’s subsequent retaliations have strained this delicate balance. More than 60,000 Israelis have been displaced by Hezbollah rocket attacks into northern Israel.
Still, in the aftermath of Hamas’s attack, Hezbollah’s relatively restrained response to Israeli provocations reveals its strategic calculus. The organization knows that a full-scale war with Israel would spell disaster for Lebanon, a country already teetering on the brink of collapse. The economic meltdown, coupled with rampant corruption and the catastrophic 2020 Beirut port explosion, has left Lebanon in ruins. Public dissatisfaction with Hezbollah’s role has surged, particularly among Lebanese Christians, who resent being dragged into conflicts not of their making.
Hezbollah also faces pressure from within. Hamas has criticized its limited participation in the conflict, forcing Nasrallah to justify Hezbollah’s actions to maintain support. To boost morale, Hezbollah has ramped up its military posturing, launching drones and conducting reconnaissance missions over Israel. Yet, as Mohanad Hage Ali writes in Foreign Affairs, these actions are calculated to avoid triggering a full-blown war.
If Israel mounts a ground operation against Hezbollah, the conflict would likely be long and bloody. Hezbollah, aware of this, has thus far opted for restraint and de-escalation. Negotiations, facilitated by Hochstein, have focused on creating a buffer zone and preventing Israeli strikes on southern Lebanese urban centers.
A cease-fire in Gaza, brokered with the help of Arab states, could pave the way for a broader peace process, addressing land-border disputes and potentially bringing a more lasting end to the conflict.
For now, all the U.S. can do is continue mediating, leveraging its influence to restrain Israeli actions and encouraging Hezbollah’s pragmatic restraint and self-preservation. The irony is palpable: a group known for its militancy and terrorist attacks and a state with a history of aggressive defense might just be nudged into peace by the very superpower that is often accused of fanning the flames of conflict.
In the end, preventing a war between Israel and Hezbollah will require a delicate balance of diplomacy, pressure, and, yes, a fair amount of irony. For now, the U.S. must play the unlikely role of peacemaker, guiding these two adversaries away from the brink and towards what would likely remain a tenuous, but still desperately needed, peace.