Earlier in the week, Hassan Nasrallah conceded that Hezbollah has in recent days suffered a “big, harsh and unprecedented blow” in the face of Israel’s “technological superiority”. He did insist on maintaining the Lebanese group’s “Gaza support front” strategy against the enemy. But the question worth asking is whether Nasrallah is having an “if only I had known” moment, similar to 2006, when he confessed that he had miscalculated his confrontation with the same foe.
Israel’s recent actions, when it is believed to have detonated thousands of pagers and wireless communication devices belonging to Hezbollah members, amount to an “act of war”, as Nasrallah described it, and as echoed by influential international voices. The use of AI and cyber-attacks has raised global alarm and condemnation.
Nasrallah’s speech on Thursday, following the pager and walkie-talkie attacks, touched on various themes, from gratitude to the Lebanese people for their support for the victims and the wounded, to defiance towards Israel, and insistence that Lebanon will continue to be a support front for Gaza (never mind that he didn’t consult with the same people to whom he said he was thankful).
However, he hinted at a potential off-ramp, suggesting that “the only way” to restore calm was for Israel to end its “aggression and war on Gaza, and of course, on the West Bank”. It is also telling that he vowed retaliation, but later. This is because such decisions are not entirely his to make, as he has to consult with the Iranian leadership, which is divided on the best way forward.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps favours teaching Israel a swift lesson, even if that means regional escalation and Tehran’s direct involvement. On the other hand, the newly elected government, led by President Masoud Pezeshkian, prefers strategic patience, wary that a broader conflict could jeopardise Democrats’ chances in the US presidential election in November.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is betting on Republicans to win and Donald Trump to return to the White House. Mr Trump’s tough stance against Tehran stands in stark contrast to President Joe Biden’s more conciliatory approach.
Mr Netanyahu is accused of stalling a ceasefire deal with Hamas that would end Israel’s war in Gaza. His stalling is probably motivated by a desire to bolster Mr Trump’s chances against the Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris. However, Hamas head Yahya Sinwar can be equally blamed for placing his own fate, and that of his group, above the interests of the Palestinian people, who continue to suffer horrifically under Israel’s brutal revenge for the October 7 attacks.
A public opinion poll conducted in the Palestinian territories earlier this month by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research revealed a sharp decline in Hamas’s popularity. Some Palestinians even expressed anger over the October 7 attacks and the destruction they have caused.
The poll results show a decrease in support for Hamas’s continued control of Gaza after the war, and a rise in preference for the Palestinian Authority’s return. These findings highlight the failure of Hamas’s leadership and reveal how it provided Israel with a pretext to implement its forced displacement plan.
“If only I had known” is a thought that should also occupy Sinwar’s mind, but he continues to deny the tragedies he has inflicted on the Palestinian people, refusing to accept compromises he inevitably must agree to, or face the consequences of waiting too long.
As for Nasrallah, had he known that the Gaza war would escalate as it has and drag on for so long, might he have reconsidered the cost of his “support” for Hamas on himself, his group and his base?
The fact is that Hezbollah has entangled itself – and Lebanon – in a war with no benefit. It has turned the Lebanese public into a bargaining chip for the Palestinian resistance, but the escalation between Hezbollah and Israel promises nothing but destruction for Lebanon, along with significant losses for the group. Indeed, this is a war that is different in its nature, tactics and technology.
Nasrallah is right in stating that the West supports Israel in its technological and cyber realms. This suggests it is time for him to stop boasting of his group’s capabilities and spare Lebanon’s citizens from further harm. His claim that his group’s support has helped the Palestinian cause without inflicting deep harm on Lebanon is simply untrue.
Iran, too, must stop playing with fire. It continues to back the Houthis’ threats to international shipping and to drag Lebanon into a disastrous conflict. But if it truly wants to fight Israel for the sake of Palestine, why doesn’t it do so directly? Because if it does, it will also join the “if I had known” lamentation club.
Hezbollah’s capabilities, along with those of the other groups backed by the IRGC, have been severely weakened, due in part to sanctions on Iran as well as Israel’s decisive strikes against Hezbollah. So there is little point in continuing to drain the so-called Lebanese support front. Lebanon has suffered enough.
Everyone is losing – even Israel. This is a time for serious action from the US, Europe and the Arab world to persuade the Netanyahu government to abandon its adventurism, and to stop relying so heavily on unconditional American support. The Biden administration must act firmly to prevent Lebanon from being dragged into a war that it knows will spiral out of control.
One can only hope, even now, that the escalation on the Lebanon-Israel border serves as an urgent prompt for serious thought from the powers that be before it’s too late.
