Isreal's Strategic Dilemma with Hezbollah
By Practitioners, For Practitioners
By Monte Erfourth, September 25, 2024
Introduction
The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel has intensified dramatically over the past year, with Hezbollah persistently launching attacks from Lebanon into northern Israel. In response, Israel has employed various strategies, culminating in a high-profile "pager attack" this month. This brilliantly conceived and executed action involved detonating booby-trapped communication devices used by Hezbollah operatives, marking a significant shift in Israel's approach to Hezbollah. Whether this tactical success fits into a broader, long-term strategy or merely serves as a short-term measure to degrade Hezbollah’s operational capability temporarily. Given Hezbollah's expansive stockpile of missiles and rockets, getting this strategic moment right is of great importance to this close American ally.
Background of the Conflict
Since October 7, 2023, Hezbollah has launched over 8,000 rockets, missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into Israeli territory, targeting both civilians and military bases in the north. This relentless bombardment has forced Israel to evacuate close to 70,000 people from border towns, creating a de facto buffer zone within Israel’s territory. The evacuation has not only had severe social and political consequences but has also represented a significant victory for Hezbollah in terms of psychological and military positioning. The group has managed to inflict sustained damage without triggering a full-scale Israeli invasion.
Israel, for its part, has shown considerable restraint in its military responses, opting to avoid an all-out war with Hezbollah, even as frustration grew among its citizens. The Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, prioritized focusing its military efforts on Hamas in Gaza, where the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) has been engaged in a prolonged campaign to degrade Hamas’s military capabilities and recover hostages. Israel’s strategy, therefore, has been to manage the Hezbollah threat in a more contained manner to avoid opening a second front while simultaneously dealing with Hamas in Gaza.
The Pager Attack: Tactical Success or Strategic Move?
The turning point in Israel’s approach came last week: the so-called "pager attack," followed by the “Walkie-Talkie attack” and a targeted missile attack. The pager and walkie-talkie attacks, executed through booby-trapped communication devices, were precision strikes aimed at Hezbollah’s operatives and infrastructure. According to reports, the operation not only killed several hundred Hezbollah fighters but also severely disrupted the group’s command-and-control systems. The explosion injured several mid-level and senior Hezbollah leaders, including special forces commander Ibrahim Aqil.
The Isrealli's severally disrupted an enemy, which meant the operation was highly successful in tactical terms. It demonstrated Israel’s intelligence capabilities and its ability to penetrate Hezbollah’s operational networks. By disabling Hezbollah’s communication systems, Israel temporarily crippled the group’s ability to coordinate attacks, thereby improving the security situation in northern Israel, at least in the short term.
However, despite the success of these brilliant communication attacks, analysts and critics have questioned whether they fit into a broader Israeli strategy. As “The Jerusalem Post” notes, while the attack dealt a significant blow to Hezbollah, it may not be enough to prevent future escalations. Hezbollah still possesses a formidable arsenal of around 150,000 rockets, and while its communication networks may have been temporarily compromised, it remains a powerful and well-resourced organization. This raises concerns that Israel’s tactical success could be undermined if Hezbollah eventually recovers and resumes its attacks. It would appear this week's stepped-up missile, aerial bombardment, and drone attacks are attempting to exploit the communications disruption to target senior leaders and indirect fire capabilities in Southern Lebanon. The presumed objective: Disrupt Hezbollah operations and push their weapons threat further north to create a larger buffer zone for northern Israel.
Several key factors have shaped Israel’s approach to Hezbollah. First, the Netanyahu government has been under significant pressure to maintain international support, particularly from the United States. President Joe Biden’s administration has urged Israel to avoid a full-scale assault on Lebanon to prevent a regional war, which has limited Israel’s military options. Second, Israel’s military planners have been wary of Hezbollah’s missile capabilities. While there is little doubt that Israel would prevail in a future war with Hezbollah, the cost in terms of civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure could be catastrophic.
This cautious approach has led to a strategy of containment, where Israel aims to manage Hezbollah’s aggression rather than engage in a full-blown conflict. As “Bloomberg” columnist Marc Champion observes, Israel’s goal appears to be to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities to the point where the group can no longer launch effective attacks. This includes targeted strikes on Hezbollah’s rocket launchers, command-and-control systems, and personnel.
However, the containment strategy is fraught with challenges. As Champion notes, Hezbollah is not Hamas. While Hamas is a relatively isolated group with limited resources, Hezbollah is deeply embedded in Lebanon’s political and military landscape. The group enjoys strong backing from Iran, with open supply routes and a strategic commitment from Tehran to support its operations. This makes Hezbollah a much more resilient adversary, capable of recovering from tactical setbacks like the pager attack, and even attacks on its rocket and missile systems.
Moreover, the pressure to escalate could grow as Israel seeks to make its northern border safe again. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has outlined Israel’s long-term goal of enabling the return of tens of thousands of Israelis who were displaced from their homes near the Lebanon border. Achieving this goal will require either pushing Hezbollah back or securing a diplomatic deal that guarantees Israel’s security. Without a comprehensive strategy to end the conflict, Israel risks being drawn into a prolonged, destabilizing occupation of southern Lebanon, similar to its experience in Gaza.
Risks of the Current Strategy
While Israel’s current containment strategy has yielded some tactical successes, it is not without risks. The most immediate risk is that Hezbollah could retaliate for the pager attack, leading to a broader escalation. Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has already pledged to continue attacking Israel as long as there is no cease-fire in Gaza. This raises the specter of a multi-front war, with Israel simultaneously fighting Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Another risk is the potential for civilian casualties and damage to Lebanon’s infrastructure, which could further isolate Israel diplomatically. As “Newsweek” notes, Hezbollah now faces a choice: either continue its aggression and risk the destruction of Lebanon or stand down and agree to a de-escalation deal. If Hezbollah chooses the former, the conflict could spiral into a full-scale war, with devastating consequences for both Israel and Lebanon.
Finally, there is the question of Israel’s long-term exit strategy. As “The Jerusalem Post” highlights, Israel’s current government has been criticized for its lack of strategic foresight. While the pager attack was a tactical success, it is not clear whether the Netanyahu government has a plan for ending the conflict on favorable terms. Without a clear endgame, Israel risks being caught in a cycle of escalation and retaliation with no clear path to peace.
Conclusion: A Need for a Broader Strategy
Israel’s pager attack on Hezbollah marked a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between the two sides. While the operation was a tactical success, it has raised questions about Israel’s broader strategy for dealing with Hezbollah. The Netanyahu government’s approach of containment has so far avoided a full-scale war, but it has also left Israel vulnerable to more aggressive future attacks. Moreover, without a clear exit strategy, Israel risks being drawn into a prolonged conflict with no end in sight.
For Israel to achieve lasting security, it must develop a comprehensive strategy beyond tactical victories. This strategy must address not only the immediate threat from Hezbollah but also the broader geopolitical context, including Iran’s role in the region. Indeed, this is not a new problem. Peace is something to hope for, but only the foolish would dare stake Israel's existence on a long-shot deal for peace with organizations that swear allegiance to its destruction. The strategy of total destruction of Iran's proxies may defang it enough to force capitulation, but it seems a hefty price. If war comes, it is unlikely to be limited and highly likely to be total war. If this is the Israeli strategy, it is taking a much longer view than it is given credit for. It is also gambling an entire generations life and financial future on a risky bet that is hardly likely to alter the status quo.
End Notes
1. Champion, Marc. "Israel’s Plans for Hezbollah Are Becoming Clearer." Bloomberg Opinion, September 20, 2024.
2. Conricus, Jonathan. "It's Last Call for Hezbollah to Opt Out of War. Israel Won't Ask Again." Newsweek, September 22, 2024.
3. Katz, Yaakov. "Israel’s Government Led by Netanyahu Lacks Strategy in HezbollahAttack." The Jerusalem Post, September 20, 2024.
Comentários