REPORT – Escalation in the Middle East: The Israeli-Lebanese Conflict and its Regional Repercussions

Settembre 29, 2024

The intensification of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, which reached new heights in September 2024, marks a significant development in the broader geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. The conflict, characterized by unprecedented military campaigns and retaliatory strikes, has drawn global attention due to the significant loss of life, regional destabilization, and the involvement of major global powers. This article delves into the latest developments, providing a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the conflict, its origins, and its potential implications.

Northern Arrows: Israel’s Latest Offensive in Lebanon

On Monday, Israel launched an extensive military operation, codenamed “Northern Arrows,” targeting Hezbollah positions in southern and eastern Lebanon. The operation, a massive bombing campaign, has resulted in over 1,500 fatalities, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia paramilitary group, responded swiftly, firing dozens of rockets into northern Israel, escalating the conflict to a level not seen since the 2006 Lebanon War. The situation is particularly grave due to Hezbollah’s increased rocket range and capability, which has caused widespread alarm in Israel and beyond.

The precision strikes in Beirut have decimated Hezbollah’s leadership, including the high-profile assassination of the group’s Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah. This assassination, carried out by an Israeli airstrike, has sparked outrage across Lebanon and the broader Shia community, heightening sectarian tensions. Hezbollah has vowed to avenge Nasrallah’s death, raising fears of an all-out war in the region.

The Preceding Explosions: A Sign of Escalation

The conflict’s current escalation was preceded by a series of mysterious explosions that shook Lebanon from September 17-18, 2024. These explosions, which targeted key communication networks like pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah, resulted in the deaths of about 40 individuals and injured over 3,500 others. The nature of these explosions remains unclear, though speculation points to Israeli intelligence operations aimed at weakening Hezbollah’s ability to coordinate its military actions.

The explosions marked a turning point in the conflict, serving as a prelude to the Northern Arrows operation. By disrupting Hezbollah’s communication infrastructure, Israel gained a tactical advantage, which it quickly exploited through targeted airstrikes. This level of preemptive military action highlights Israel’s commitment to dismantling Hezbollah’s operational capacity, particularly in light of the group’s close ties with Iran.

𝐈𝐃𝐅: 𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐞𝐳𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡’𝐬 𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢-𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭 𝐄𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐞𝐢𝐫𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐤 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐃𝐅; 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚… pic.twitter.com/rbHsGZNMjJ
— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) September 28, 2024

Regional Reactions: Beijing’s Condemnation

As the conflict escalated, international reactions poured in, with China emerging as a vocal critic of Israel’s actions. The Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a strong statement condemning the strikes, particularly the killing of Nasrallah, which it described as a violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and security. Beijing emphasized that actions leading to regional tensions were unacceptable and urged Israel to halt its aggressive campaign.

“China opposes the infringement on Lebanon’s sovereignty and security, opposes and condemns any action against innocent civilians, and opposes any move that fuels antagonism and escalates regional tensions,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry declared. This stance aligns with Beijing’s broader foreign policy, which emphasizes the principles of sovereignty and non-interference, particularly in the Middle East, where China has significant economic and strategic interests.

China’s growing role in the Middle East cannot be overlooked. Its criticism of Israel’s actions and call for de-escalation reflect its intent to assert itself as a key player in regional diplomacy. The conflict presents Beijing with an opportunity to balance its relationships with both Israel and the Arab world, particularly as it seeks to protect its Belt and Road Initiative investments in the region. Moreover, the Chinese government has expressed deep concern over the conflict’s potential to spiral out of control, a scenario that would threaten global stability and economic interests.

The United States’ Involvement: A Diplomatic Fallout

The fallout from Nasrallah’s assassination has not been limited to Lebanon. Reports indicate that Israel provided the United States with only a few minutes’ notice before executing the strike, which enraged Pentagon officials. According to U.S. media reports, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was furious when Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant informed him of the operation, as the short notice left U.S. military forces in the region vulnerable to retaliation.

The assassination has strained U.S.-Israeli relations, particularly as Washington has thousands of troops stationed across the Middle East. The Pentagon’s concern is that Hezbollah, backed by Iran, could target American assets in the region as part of its retaliation for Nasrallah’s death. Despite this tension, the U.S. remains a staunch ally of Israel, though the incident has underscored the delicate balance Washington must maintain between supporting Israel’s security and protecting its broader strategic interests in the Middle East.

Hezbollah’s Response and the Growing Threat

Hezbollah’s response to Israel’s campaign has been swift and deadly. The group, long backed by Iran, has fired rockets into northern Israel with increasing frequency, extending the range of its attacks to previously unaffected areas. The escalation of hostilities poses a significant threat to Israeli security, particularly as Hezbollah has proven its ability to strike deep into Israeli territory.

The rocket fire from Hezbollah has also been accompanied by calls for resistance from various factions within Lebanon. The country, already reeling from economic collapse and political instability, now faces the added threat of full-scale military conflict. Hezbollah’s military wing, which has grown in strength since the 2006 war, is prepared for a protracted confrontation with Israel, raising the specter of a prolonged and bloody conflict.

The Israeli-Lebanese Border: A Ticking Time Bomb

The situation along the Israeli-Lebanese border has been deteriorating for months. Tensions have been particularly high since the outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza in October 2023. Hezbollah has expressed solidarity with the Palestinian cause, and the group’s leadership has vowed to support Hamas in its struggle against Israel. This has only served to deepen the enmity between Israel and Hezbollah, with the border region becoming a flashpoint for skirmishes and rocket attacks.

The Israeli military has responded to these provocations with a show of force, deploying additional troops to the border and preparing for a possible ground operation in Lebanon. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have been conducting extensive training exercises, simulating urban warfare scenarios in preparation for a potential invasion of Hezbollah-controlled areas. While Israel has not yet committed to a ground invasion, the possibility looms large, particularly as the air campaign has so far failed to fully neutralize Hezbollah’s capabilities.

Hezbollah’s Strategic Alliances: Iran and Beyond

One of the most concerning aspects of the current conflict is Hezbollah’s deepening relationship with Iran. Tehran has long provided Hezbollah with financial and military support, and the current conflict has only strengthened this alliance. In recent months, Iran has supplied Hezbollah with advanced weaponry, including precision-guided missiles and drones, significantly boosting the group’s military capabilities.

The Iranian government has condemned Israel’s actions and pledged to support Hezbollah in its fight against Israeli aggression. This has raised fears of a broader regional war, particularly as Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been increasingly involved in supporting proxy groups across the Middle East. The possibility of direct Iranian involvement in the conflict cannot be ruled out, particularly if Israel proceeds with a ground invasion of Lebanon.

The Broader Geopolitical Implications

The Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is not occurring in isolation. It is part of a broader struggle for influence in the Middle East, with regional powers like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey all seeking to assert their dominance. The conflict also has significant implications for the United States and its allies, particularly as the region remains a key strategic area for global energy supplies and trade routes.

The potential for the conflict to draw in other regional actors, such as Syria or Iraq, is high. Both countries have close ties to Iran and Hezbollah, and any escalation in Lebanon could easily spill over into their territories. Moreover, the conflict has the potential to disrupt global oil markets, particularly if it affects shipping routes through the Eastern Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf.

A Path Forward?

As the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah continues to escalate, the international community faces a daunting challenge. The loss of life, destruction of infrastructure, and potential for regional destabilization make it imperative for global powers to intervene diplomatically. China, the United States, and the European Union all have a role to play in de-escalating the situation and preventing further bloodshed.

However, the path to peace remains unclear. Israel has made it clear that it will not tolerate Hezbollah’s presence on its northern border, while Hezbollah has vowed to continue its resistance against Israeli aggression. The deaths of Nasrallah and other senior Hezbollah leaders have only hardened the group’s resolve, and the potential for a prolonged and bloody conflict looms large.

In the end, the fate of Lebanon, Israel, and the broader Middle East may hinge on the ability of international actors to broker a ceasefire and bring both parties to the negotiating table. Until then, the region remains on the brink of further violence, with the potential for a new and devastating chapter in the long history of conflict in the Middle East.

The Israel-Lebanon Border Conflict: Historical Disputes, Hezbollah’s Role, and the Path to Resolution

The current military and geopolitical situation between Israel and Lebanon, particularly involving Hezbollah, must be viewed against the backdrop of the century-old border disputes and the continuous shifts in territorial control and power dynamics in the region. The demarcation of the border between Israel and Lebanon remains one of the central issues fueling the conflict, not only in military terms but also in diplomatic and political arenas.

Historical Context of the Israel-Lebanon Border Demarcation

The Israel-Lebanon border, approximately 120 kilometers long, was originally drawn as part of the Franco-British Agreement on Mandatory Borders signed in Paris in 1920. This agreement aimed to define the borders of the territories previously under Ottoman control, with the French taking the mandate for Lebanon and Syria and the British for Palestine. The demarcation, however, was fraught with complications. The actual border demarcation was carried out by French Lieutenant Colonel Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel Newcombe, who established boundary pillars—many of which have disappeared over the years, making the physical demarcation of the border difficult and contested.

Following the Israeli War of Independence and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon reiterated the use of the original Mandate-era borders, though the agreement did not fully clarify the physical markers along the boundary. This vagueness would lay the groundwork for future disputes, as the exact points of the border became obscured by shifting military and political realities. The creation of the “Blue Line” in 2000, following Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 425, marked a significant attempt to formalize the border. Yet, Lebanon’s reservations over 13 specific points along the Blue Line have kept the issue unresolved, with Hezbollah using these points of contention to justify its ongoing hostilities with Israel.

Detailed Explanation of the 120 km Israel-Lebanon Border

The Israel-Lebanon border, often referred to as the “Blue Line” by the United Nations, is approximately 120 kilometers long. This length is an estimate based on the modern political boundary, and its origin dates back to early 20th-century agreements and negotiations, specifically after World War I. Below is a comprehensive, detailed analysis of the historical context and technical factors involved in defining this border.

Franco-British Agreement on Mandatory Borders (1920)

The border was originally drawn as part of the Franco-British Agreement on Mandatory Borders in 1920, signed in Paris. This agreement was a consequence of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled over the region for centuries. The League of Nations gave mandates to European powers to administer different parts of the former Ottoman territories.
- France took control over Lebanon and Syria.
- Britain took control over Palestine (which included modern Israel and Jordan) and Iraq.

The aim of the agreement was to clearly define borders between the French and British zones of influence.

The Paulet-Newcombe Agreement (1923)

The actual border demarcation between what would become modern Israel and Lebanon was formalized by two military officers:
- French Lieutenant Colonel Paulet
- British Lieutenant Colonel Newcombe
This resulted in the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement, signed in 1923, which finalized the boundary between the British and French mandates.
The demarcation included the physical placement of boundary pillars or markers along the frontier. However, many of these pillars have since disappeared, either due to natural erosion, military conflicts, or infrastructure developments, contributing to disputes and difficulties in clearly identifying parts of the border today.

Complications in Demarcation

The original demarcation of the border was fraught with several complications:

Geographical Challenges: The region is rugged and mountainous, making it difficult to establish clear, straight boundary lines.
Cultural and Ethnic Overlaps: The populations living near the border areas often had shared ethnic and cultural ties that transcended the newly drawn boundaries, complicating the administration of these borders.
Disappearance of Boundary Markers: Many of the original boundary markers have disappeared over the years due to military action, weather, or urban development, making the physical border difficult to trace.

The Length of the Border: Is it Exactly 120 km?

The figure 120 kilometers is an approximate length of the modern Israel-Lebanon border, but it may not be entirely precise. This estimate can vary slightly depending on which sections of the border are included and how the border is measured (whether in a straight line or by following the natural contours of the land). For example:

The “Blue Line”, which is the UN-recognized demarcation line between Israel and Lebanon established in 2000, is considered the working border but is based on the earlier borders drawn by the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement.
Different sources may cite slightly varying lengths due to the topographical complexity of the area, but 120 kilometers remains a reasonable, widely accepted approximation.

Geographic Coordinates and the Specific Route of the Border

The Israel-Lebanon border begins in the west at Rosh HaNikra, a town on the Mediterranean coast, and runs eastward through various mountainous regions. The border crosses the Upper Galilee and ends near the Golan Heights in the east. The presence of several valleys and mountain ranges makes this a highly complex and winding border.

Contested Border and Modern Disputes

The Israel-Lebanon border has long been a source of contention:

Border Disputes: Even though the “Blue Line” was established by the United Nations as a withdrawal line for Israeli forces in 2000, Lebanon has never officially recognized it as the formal international border. The Shebaa Farms area, in particular, remains a point of dispute.
Military Conflicts: Due to the historical tensions and conflicts between Israel and Hezbollah, the border remains a militarized zone, often leading to skirmishes and violations of territorial sovereignty.

Historical Significance

The Lebanon-Israel border is not just a physical boundary but also a symbol of geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. It reflects the complicated legacies of colonialism, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
This border region has witnessed multiple conflicts, including the Israeli-Lebanese wars (1982 and 2006), and continues to be a focus of international diplomacy.

In conclusion…………….

The 120 km length of the Israel-Lebanon border is an estimate derived from modern measurements of the boundary established by the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement in 1923, following the framework laid out by the Franco-British Agreement of 1920.
While the demarcation was clear on paper, the physical border has been subject to multiple complications over the decades, including the disappearance of boundary markers and disputes over certain areas such as the Shebaa Farms.
The modern Blue Line, while recognized by the United Nations, is not universally accepted, especially by Lebanon, making the border still a source of tension and sometimes conflict in the region.

The Role of the Blue Line and Points of Contention

The Blue Line, drawn by UN cartographers in 2000 to mark the line of Israeli withdrawal, is a critical reference point in the current border conflict. However, Lebanon’s objections to 13 specific points along the line remain a source of tension. These contested areas cover approximately 485,000 square meters, with some of the key areas, such as Rosh Hanikra (B1), the village of Ghajar, and the Shebaa Farms, having significant strategic importance. Hezbollah has capitalized on these disputes, framing its actions as part of the struggle to liberate occupied Lebanese territories, a narrative it has used to maintain its military presence and defy calls for disarmament by Lebanon’s political factions and international actors.

The situation is further complicated by the ongoing uncertainty regarding the status of the village of Ghajar, which is bisected by the Blue Line, leaving part of the village technically in Lebanese territory, although it has been under Israeli control since the Six-Day War of 1967. Similarly, the Shebaa Farms area, claimed by both Lebanon and Syria but captured by Israel from Syria, has become another focal point of Hezbollah’s military actions. These contested territories serve as both physical and symbolic battlegrounds in the broader conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

Hezbollah’s Role and Strategic Motivations

Hezbollah’s actions in the current conflict must be seen within the context of its longstanding opposition to Israeli control over disputed territories, as well as its broader goal of maintaining its political and military dominance in Lebanon. The group’s military campaign in southern Lebanon is deeply intertwined with its strategic interests in preserving its role as the “defender of Lebanon.” Hezbollah has positioned itself as a resistance movement against Israeli occupation, not only in the contested border areas but also in the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The death of Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in an Israeli airstrike in 2024 has only intensified Hezbollah’s resolve. Nasrallah’s assassination is a significant blow to the organization, both operationally and symbolically, and has spurred calls for retaliation. Hezbollah’s military strategy, including its use of rocket fire into northern Israel, is aimed at both exacting revenge for Nasrallah’s death and maintaining pressure on Israel in the ongoing border disputes.

Hezbollah’s targeting of key areas such as Mount Dov and Shebaa Farms demonstrates its focus on the strategic importance of these locations. By maintaining a presence and launching attacks from these areas, Hezbollah seeks to assert its claim over disputed territories and disrupt Israel’s military operations. The narrative of “liberating occupied territories” remains central to Hezbollah’s justification for its continued military actions, despite Lebanon’s official position, which does not always align with Hezbollah’s more expansive territorial claims.

Diplomatic Efforts and Obstacles

The prospect of resolving the border disputes between Israel and Lebanon is further complicated by the absence of a stable political environment in Lebanon. Since the end of President Michel Aoun’s term in October 2022, Lebanon has been without a fully functioning government, leaving a transitional administration to handle the country’s affairs. This political vacuum makes it difficult for Lebanon to engage in meaningful negotiations with Israel over the border issues, as any agreement reached could be contested domestically by Hezbollah and other political factions.

Despite efforts by international actors such as the United Nations to mediate the conflict, the lack of a unified Lebanese government and Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm present significant barriers to progress. UN Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted after the 2006 Lebanon War, called for the disarmament of Hezbollah and the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon. However, the resolution remains only partially implemented, with Hezbollah retaining its weapons and continuing to operate in southern Lebanon. The international community has repeatedly called for the full implementation of Resolution 1701, but Hezbollah’s military actions and Lebanon’s internal political instability have made this goal elusive.

Recent Developments and Military Actions

In 2023 and 2024, the situation along the Israeli-Lebanese border has further deteriorated, with increased military activity and a growing risk of all-out war. Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, have led to significant civilian displacement, with over 211,000 people forced to flee their homes, according to data from the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The humanitarian crisis is exacerbated by the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the ongoing violence, which has created a climate of fear and uncertainty for those living in the affected areas.

The death of Nasrallah has also led to a series of retaliatory attacks by Hezbollah, which has launched rockets and missiles into northern Israel. Israeli forces have responded with further airstrikes, and there are indications that Israel may be preparing for a ground incursion into Lebanon to neutralize Hezbollah’s positions near the border. Such an operation, if it occurs, would likely be limited in scope but would aim to clear the area of Hezbollah fighters and allow the return of evacuated Israeli citizens to their homes.

The involvement of the United States in the conflict, primarily through diplomatic channels, highlights the broader international implications of the Israel-Hezbollah confrontation. The Biden administration has made it clear that avoiding an Israeli ground invasion is a top priority, as such an escalation could draw in Iran, Hezbollah’s primary sponsor, and lead to a wider regional conflict. American officials have emphasized the need for a ceasefire and a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, though the situation on the ground remains highly volatile.

The Israel-Lebanon border conflict, particularly the role of Hezbollah, remains a complex and multi-faceted issue with deep historical roots and significant geopolitical implications. The contested territories along the Blue Line, including Rosh Hanikra, the village of Ghajar, and the Shebaa Farms, continue to serve as flashpoints for violence, with Hezbollah using these disputes to justify its military actions and maintain its role as Lebanon’s self-proclaimed defender.

Resolving the border disputes will require not only a cessation of hostilities but also a comprehensive diplomatic effort involving Lebanon’s fractured political landscape, Israel’s security concerns, and the broader international community. However, as long as Hezbollah retains its weapons and continues to assert its territorial claims, the prospect of lasting peace remains uncertain. For now, the border between Israel and Lebanon remains a battleground, with the risk of further escalation ever-present.

Escalation at Beirut International Airport: Israeli Threats, Hezbollah Arms Transfers, and Regional Tensions

The recent developments surrounding Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport signal a significant escalation in the already fraught dynamics between Israel and Hezbollah, with implications for Lebanon’s sovereignty and civilian infrastructure. On Saturday, September 2024, the Israeli army took a drastic step by hacking into the control tower of Beirut’s main airport, issuing direct threats against an Iranian civilian aircraft attempting to land. This move marks a stark departure from previous Israeli strategies and introduces a new dimension to the conflict: the overt targeting of civilian aviation infrastructure under the pretext of preventing arms transfers to Hezbollah.

Israeli Threats Against Civil Aviation

According to official sources from the Anadolu Agency, the Israeli army’s aggressive stance towards the Iranian aircraft was motivated by intelligence suggesting that weapons were being smuggled into Lebanon for Hezbollah through the airport. This has been a consistent concern for Israel, which views Hezbollah’s growing arsenal, largely supported by Iranian military resources, as a direct threat to its national security. The warnings from Israeli military spokesman Daniel Hagari further underscored this stance, as he declared that Israel “will not allow any weapons to be transferred to Hezbollah,” whether through the airport or any other means.

Hagari’s assertion that Rafic Hariri International Airport should remain exclusively for civilian use reflects Israel’s concerns that Hezbollah could be using civilian aviation routes as a cover for military logistics. By issuing threats directly to an Iranian civilian aircraft, Israel is signaling its readiness to intercept or prevent such operations, regardless of the civilian implications. However, this approach risks further inflaming tensions in Lebanon, where the country’s fragile political landscape is already strained by the ongoing conflict with Israel and the socio-economic collapse within Lebanon itself.

Lebanese Response and the International Implications

Lebanon’s immediate reaction to these developments was swift. The Ministry of Public Works and Transport, led by Ali Hamieh, issued a directive preventing the Iranian aircraft from entering Lebanese airspace. This move was likely aimed at averting a potentially catastrophic military strike on civilian aviation infrastructure. Hamieh was quick to deny Israeli allegations that Beirut International Airport was being used to facilitate arms transfers to Hezbollah. In a public statement, Hamieh emphasized that the airport is “exclusively civilian” and that any military air traffic would be subject to the approval of the Lebanese army, which oversees all airspace operations in the country.

The Lebanese government’s position underscores the delicate balance it must maintain in the face of external pressures from Israel and internal political forces, including Hezbollah. By denying the allegations, Beirut is attempting to preserve the neutrality of its civilian infrastructure while also seeking to de-escalate the potential for Israeli strikes on critical assets like the international airport, which serves as a vital connection point for Lebanon to the outside world.

These developments also place Lebanon in a precarious situation internationally. The targeting of a civilian airport, even if suspected of being used for military purposes, could provoke condemnation from international bodies such as the United Nations or the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Any military action that impacts civilian air traffic risks violating international aviation laws and could result in significant diplomatic fallout for Israel. However, Israel’s justification—that it is preventing arms smuggling to a militant organization—will resonate with some of its international allies, particularly the United States, which has also expressed concerns about Iranian arms transfers to Hezbollah.

The Broader Context: Weapons Transfers and Hezbollah’s Military Strength

The Israeli claims regarding weapons transfers to Hezbollah through Beirut’s airport fit into a broader pattern of Israeli operations aimed at disrupting the group’s military capabilities. Over the years, Hezbollah has amassed a significant arsenal, much of which is believed to be supplied by Iran. These weapons include advanced rockets, missiles, and drones, which pose a serious threat to Israel’s northern border. Israeli intelligence has long been focused on tracking and intercepting these shipments, which often pass through Syria before reaching Hezbollah’s hands in Lebanon.

In light of Hezbollah’s increasing firepower, Israel’s latest actions at Beirut International Airport signal a heightened level of concern. The death of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, reportedly killed in an Israeli airstrike, has only intensified the conflict, with Israel keen on ensuring that the group does not replenish its leadership or its military resources. Nasrallah’s death, confirmed by Israeli army spokesman Avichay Adraee in a public statement, marked a significant blow to Hezbollah’s command structure. The airstrike that killed him targeted the central command of Hezbollah, located beneath a residential building in Beirut’s southern suburbs, a known Hezbollah stronghold.

Strategic Implications for the Region

The Israeli move to threaten a civilian aircraft underlines a broader strategy aimed at isolating Hezbollah and cutting off its supply lines. Israel’s actions, however, are not without risk. By targeting civil infrastructure, even in the context of preventing weapons transfers, Israel may escalate the conflict beyond its current scope. The hacking of Beirut’s airport control tower and the subsequent threats against an Iranian plane are indicative of how deeply intertwined the military and civilian aspects of this conflict have become.

For Hezbollah, Israel’s aggressive posturing, especially around Beirut International Airport, could serve as a rallying point, further legitimizing its stance as Lebanon’s defender against Israeli aggression. The group’s military response to Nasrallah’s assassination is expected to be severe, with the possibility of increased rocket attacks on northern Israel. Hezbollah has already demonstrated its capacity to strike Israeli territory with long-range rockets, and any further provocation could lead to a larger-scale confrontation, potentially dragging in other regional players, including Iran.

The Risks of Targeting Civilian Infrastructure

The situation at Rafic Hariri International Airport is emblematic of the broader Israel-Hezbollah conflict, where civilian and military lines are increasingly blurred. Israel’s threats against a civilian aircraft, though framed as a necessary measure to prevent arms smuggling, represent a dangerous escalation that could have far-reaching consequences for the region. Should Israeli intelligence prove incorrect, or should the targeting of civilian infrastructure lead to unintended casualties, Israel could find itself facing significant international backlash.

On the other hand, Hezbollah’s continued reliance on civilian infrastructure for military operations complicates Lebanon’s ability to maintain its sovereignty and protect its civilian population from the consequences of the ongoing conflict. As the war between Israel and Hezbollah escalates, both sides are likely to engage in more aggressive tactics, increasing the likelihood of further civilian displacements and infrastructure damage.

In the near term, diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation must focus on preventing further military actions that impact civilian infrastructure, such as airports, while addressing the underlying issues of arms transfers and Hezbollah’s military presence in Lebanon. International mediators, including the United Nations, will likely play a key role in attempting to broker a ceasefire, though the success of such efforts remains uncertain given the entrenched positions of both Israel and Hezbollah.

UNIFIL’s Role in Maintaining Peace: Indian Troops Stabilize the Israel-Lebanon Border Amid Escalating Conflict

As the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah intensifies along the Israel-Lebanon border, the role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), particularly its Indian contingent, has become even more critical. UNIFIL personnel, including 670 Indian troops, are stationed along the Blue Line, a demarcation created in 2000 following Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon, which continues to be a flashpoint for conflict. Indian troops are deployed as part of a broader mission to observe, monitor, and maintain peace in this volatile region.

The Role of UNIFIL and Indian Troops in Lebanon

The primary mission of UNIFIL, established in 1978 following the outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, is to ensure peace and prevent further escalation along the contentious border. The Indian contingent, part of UNIFIL since 1998, plays a stabilizing role in this conflict zone. Their duties involve monitoring ceasefire violations, patrolling designated areas, and providing humanitarian assistance to displaced civilians. However, their mandate strictly prohibits direct engagement in combat; instead, their role is to provide a buffer between warring parties, facilitate dialogue, and ensure compliance with United Nations resolutions.

The situation in Lebanon has grown increasingly unstable, with over 100,000 people displaced by the ongoing conflict, adding to the already significant humanitarian crisis. As Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) continue their airstrikes targeting Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, UNIFIL forces, including Indian troops, remain vigilant, ensuring that the conflict does not escalate further. While the violence has yet to directly impact UNIFIL bases, the situation remains highly dangerous, with regular bombardments in the vicinity of UNIFIL zones.

Indian Troops and the Blue Line

Indian soldiers, who are stationed near the outskirts of Beirut and along the Blue Line, play a critical role in maintaining a fragile peace in the region. Their presence is essential in ensuring that the 2006 UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, is upheld. Despite being under constant threat from the ongoing military operations, these troops are instrumental in preventing miscommunications that could lead to unintended escalations. Their efforts focus on de-escalation, which is vital given the growing tensions and the destructive potential of the conflict.

An Indian Army source stationed in Lebanon stated, “Bombardments have become routine to dismantle terror groups, but so far, UNIFIL camps have not been directly targeted. However, the situation remains extremely dangerous.” This comment highlights the precarious nature of the mission and the risks faced by Indian troops as they work to uphold peace and stability in a region marked by decades of conflict.

Hezbollah, Israeli Strikes, and the Indian Contingent

Israel’s ongoing military operations in Lebanon have focused primarily on Hezbollah strongholds and weapons storage sites, with the recent death of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah reported as a significant blow to the militant group. While the exact circumstances of Nasrallah’s death remain unclear, his elimination marks a turning point in Israel’s strategy, as it seeks to dismantle Hezbollah’s leadership and infrastructure. This could result in further escalations, placing UNIFIL personnel, including the Indian contingent, at increased risk.

The Indian soldiers, though not directly involved in combat, are tasked with ensuring that ceasefire agreements and de-escalation measures are respected. Their non-combatant role involves closely monitoring the conflict, reporting any breaches of the ceasefire, and facilitating communication between the warring parties. Despite the heightened tensions, the Indian troops continue their work, showcasing India’s long-standing commitment to global peacekeeping missions.

India’s Contribution to UN Peacekeeping Missions

India’s participation in UN peacekeeping missions is a source of national pride, with over 6,000 soldiers deployed in various conflict zones worldwide. India has a long history of contributing to international peacekeeping efforts, dating back to the early days of the United Nations. However, these missions are not without risks. Tragically, 159 Indian soldiers have lost their lives while serving in UN missions, a testament to the dangers faced by peacekeepers in volatile regions.

One particularly notable loss was that of Colonel (Retd) Vaibhav Anil Kale, a former Security Coordination Officer with the UN’s Department of Safety and Security (DSS), who was killed in May 2024 while on duty in Gaza. His death, along with those of other Indian soldiers, underscores the sacrifices made by Indian peacekeepers in their efforts to stabilize conflict-ridden regions. Following his death, the United Nations expressed deep regret to India, acknowledging the critical role Indian soldiers play in peacekeeping efforts around the world.

The Importance of UNIFIL in Preventing Escalation

As the Israel-Hezbollah conflict continues to rage, the role of UNIFIL, particularly its Indian personnel, is vital in preventing further escalation. By maintaining peace, monitoring ceasefire violations, and ensuring compliance with international mandates, these soldiers help stabilize one of the most volatile regions in the world. Their work, though fraught with danger, is essential to the international community’s broader efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

For India, its contribution to UN peacekeeping missions, particularly in Lebanon, reflects its broader commitment to global peace and stability. The Indian contingent in UNIFIL continues to stand as a symbol of India’s dedication to upholding international peace, even in the face of significant risks and challenges. The situation along the Israel-Lebanon border remains fragile, and the presence of Indian troops plays a crucial role in maintaining a buffer that prevents the situation from spiraling into further violence.

Lebanon’s Fragile State: Between Hezbollah’s Power and Political Instability Amid Ongoing Conflict with Israel

The political and social landscape of Lebanon is facing profound challenges as experts describe the nation as being caught “between mafia and militia.” This metaphor captures the delicate balance between Lebanon’s corrupt political elite, referred to as the “mafia,” and the paramilitary force of Hezbollah, the “militia.” The country’s future remains uncertain as it grapples with internal dysfunction and external military pressures from Israel, amidst growing concerns about U.S. influence and the broader geopolitical ramifications of the ongoing conflict.

U.S. Influence and Strategic Missteps

Lebanon’s predicament is intricately linked to U.S. foreign policy, particularly in how Washington engages with the Middle East. As tensions between Israel and Hezbollah escalate, experts like Hamoud Salhi, a political science professor at California State University-Dominguez Hills, have criticized the U.S. for failing to effectively intervene. He argues that U.S. strategic interests in the region are at risk, with the continued conflict stretching the U.S. and its allies, and the increasing involvement of Hezbollah’s regional partners like Iran, Yemen, and Iraq poses the risk of drawing them into a broader confrontation.

The U.S. has long relied on its relationship with Israel to counterbalance the influence of other powers like Russia and China in the region. However, the sustainability of this approach is being called into question. Salhi warns that the longer this conflict persists, the greater the pressure will be on both the U.S. and its regional partners, including Arab governments that could face internal unrest due to the prolonged war. The upcoming U.S. presidential election in November 2024 is seen as a potential turning point, as the current administration, under President Joe Biden, may have greater flexibility to address these complex issues once electoral concerns subside.

Lebanon’s Internal Struggles: Hezbollah’s Role in the Power Vacuum

Lebanon’s internal instability has created fertile ground for Hezbollah to exert greater influence. The group has been able to fill gaps left by Lebanon’s dysfunctional government, operating not just as a militant organization but as a provider of services, including a banking system, supermarkets, and welfare programs. This infrastructure enables Hezbollah to maintain its popularity among segments of the Lebanese population, despite the heavy toll its military actions against Israel have taken on the country.

Jean AbiNader, vice president for policy at the American Task Force on Lebanon, emphasized that Hezbollah’s military, political, and social dominance comes at the expense of Lebanon’s sovereignty and its potential for democratic governance. He highlighted the narrative that Lebanon is torn between Christians and Hezbollah or between Israel and Hezbollah, a simplistic view that ignores the complexity of Lebanon’s sectarian makeup and political fragmentation.

AbiNader further argued that Lebanon’s current situation is a reflection of the systemic failure of its political institutions, which he referred to as a “mafia” leadership. The political elite’s inability to reform the system or address the population’s needs has allowed Hezbollah to step in, solidifying its control and complicating efforts to re-establish a functioning, democratic state. This duality of power – between a corrupt political class and a heavily armed militia – has trapped Lebanon in a cycle of dysfunction and conflict.

Hezbollah and Israel: A Cycle of Retaliation

Recent escalations in violence between Hezbollah and Israel, particularly after the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in an Israeli airstrike, underscore the continuing volatility of the region. The Israeli strike, which also reportedly killed senior Hezbollah figures and possibly Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanders, was a significant blow to Hezbollah’s leadership but did not halt its operations. In response, Hezbollah vowed to continue its “holy war” against Israel, further entrenching the conflict and displacing hundreds of thousands of civilians in southern Lebanon.

Israel’s military operations, aimed at dismantling Hezbollah’s rocket-launching capabilities, have resulted in widespread destruction, but they have also raised concerns about civilian casualties. AbiNader noted that Israeli forces often issue warnings to Lebanese civilians to evacuate areas where Hezbollah operates, but the distinction between Hezbollah fighters and the civilian population is often blurred. This, in turn, fuels resentment among Lebanese citizens and complicates international efforts to de-escalate the conflict.

International Response and the Search for Middle Ground

The international community, including the United States, France, and other allies, has attempted to broker ceasefires and promote diplomacy. The recent joint statement by the U.S. and 11 other nations, calling for a 21-day ceasefire along the Lebanon-Israel border, is an example of these efforts. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of the ceasefire proposal, under pressure from right-wing factions within his government, highlights the challenges of securing lasting peace.

The role of international mediators, particularly the United Nations, remains crucial in efforts to stabilize the region. However, the complexity of the conflict—rooted in decades of territorial disputes, sectarian divisions, and external interventions—makes it difficult to achieve a resolution that satisfies all parties. AbiNader stressed that without addressing the underlying narratives driving the conflict, particularly the needs of the Lebanese population represented by Hezbollah, a sustainable peace will remain elusive.

Lebanon’s Uncertain Future

Lebanon’s future hangs in the balance as it struggles with the competing forces of a dysfunctional political system and the militarized power of Hezbollah. The conflict with Israel exacerbates these internal divisions, with civilians bearing the brunt of the violence. Experts like AbiNader and Salhi argue that meaningful change can only come through international intervention and a rethinking of U.S. strategy in the region. However, as both Hezbollah and Israel remain entrenched in their positions, the prospects for de-escalation appear dim.

The long-standing issues surrounding Lebanon’s governance, Hezbollah’s dominance, and Israel’s security concerns will continue to shape the region’s dynamics for years to come. The international community must find a way to navigate these competing interests while addressing the legitimate needs of the Lebanese people, or risk further instability in an already volatile region. Without significant reforms or a shift in regional strategies, Lebanon may continue to be caught “between mafia and militia,” unable to escape its cycle of conflict and political dysfunction.

The Enduring Challenges of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and Lebanon’s Complex Geopolitical Struggles

On August 11, 2006, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) unanimously adopted Resolution 1701 in response to the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah. Its purpose was to bring an end to hostilities, establish a framework for long-term peace, and restore Lebanon’s sovereignty by deploying both the Lebanese Army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in southern Lebanon. Yet, despite its high aspirations, the resolution has seen limited success, with its core objectives, such as the disarmament of Hezbollah and Israel’s full withdrawal, remaining largely unmet. The reasons behind its failure are deeply rooted in Lebanon’s internal politics, regional geopolitics, and the increasing militarization of Hezbollah.

The Objectives of Resolution 1701

UNSC Resolution 1701 was designed to create a demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese government reclaiming full sovereignty over this region. Key elements included:

The cessation of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel.
The withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory.
The deployment of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL in southern Lebanon.
The disarmament of Hezbollah and other non-state actors.
A ban on arms shipments to Lebanon, except through the Lebanese government.

The resolution aimed to stabilize a region long marked by conflict and to establish a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon, patrolled by 15,000 UNIFIL troops.

Limited Success and Persistent Violations

Despite these clear objectives, implementation of Resolution 1701 has been fraught with difficulties. Hezbollah remains deeply entrenched in southern Lebanon, its military capabilities enhanced by a significant arsenal of rockets, missiles, and even drones, many of which are supplied by Iran. These weapons are stationed close to the Israeli border, posing a continuous threat. Israel, on the other hand, has repeatedly violated Lebanese airspace and waters, maintaining an aggressive stance to preempt Hezbollah’s growing military threat. Both sides accuse each other of undermining the resolution-

The peacekeeping role of UNIFIL has also been complicated by Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm and the Lebanese government’s inability to assert full control over the southern territories. UNIFIL lacks the authority to confront Hezbollah directly, which has allowed the militant group to establish a quasi-state in Lebanon’s southern regions-

Hezbollah’s Rise in Power and Influence

One of the major impediments to the full implementation of Resolution 1701 is Hezbollah’s rise in political and military power. Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian civil war has further strengthened its ties to Iran and solidified its position as the dominant actor in Lebanon’s political landscape. The group controls much of southern Lebanon and operates with significant autonomy from the Lebanese government. Its influence extends beyond the battlefield into Lebanon’s parliament, which complicates any attempt to implement a strategy of disarmament.

Hezbollah’s growing military capabilities are not just a Lebanese issue but a regional one. It plays a crucial role in Iran’s broader geopolitical strategy, serving as Tehran’s primary proxy in its confrontation with Israel. The group’s vast stockpile of weapons and its role in conflicts across the Middle East, from Syria to Yemen, have placed Lebanon at the center of a regional power struggle.

The Inaction of the International Community

The international community, particularly the UNSC, has failed to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1701. UNIFIL, while instrumental in maintaining some degree of calm, has been ineffective in compelling Hezbollah to disarm or Israel to fully withdraw. Moreover, UNIFIL’s ability to operate independently is constrained by the requirement to coordinate with the Lebanese Army, which is unwilling to confront Hezbollah.

The geopolitical complexities in the Middle East—especially the enduring hostilities between Israel, Iran, and their respective allies—have rendered Resolution 1701 increasingly irrelevant in addressing the root causes of the conflict. Diplomatic efforts, including those led by the U.S. and France, have tried to push for a more comprehensive ceasefire, but they have been stymied by Hezbollah’s continued rocket attacks and Israel’s aerial bombardments.

Lebanon’s Internal Challenges

Lebanon itself is facing a deep political and economic crisis that further complicates the implementation of Resolution 1701. The Lebanese state is fragmented along sectarian lines, with Hezbollah exerting significant influence over both the government and the military. This internal division makes it difficult for the Lebanese state to act independently or effectively against Hezbollah.

Lebanon’s ongoing economic collapse, exacerbated by the 2020 Beirut port explosion, has weakened the country’s institutions and undermined its ability to maintain internal security. The Lebanese Armed Forces, already underfunded and overstretched, lack the capacity to enforce a meaningful disarmament of Hezbollah, further diminishing the prospects for Resolution 1701’s success.

The Role of Iran and Regional Implications

Iran’s support for Hezbollah remains a critical factor in Lebanon’s security dynamics. As part of its broader regional strategy, Iran continues to funnel money, weapons, and military expertise to Hezbollah, making it one of the most powerful non-state actors in the world. Tehran sees Hezbollah as a vital component of its “axis of resistance” against Israel and the U.S., and therefore has little incentive to support efforts that would weaken the group.

Israel, for its part, views Hezbollah as a direct threat to its northern borders. The Israeli military has frequently struck targets in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq in efforts to preempt Hezbollah’s build-up of weapons, particularly precision-guided missiles. In recent months, tensions between Israel and Hezbollah have escalated, with fears of a full-scale war breaking out again. This ongoing conflict has rendered the goals of Resolution 1701 virtually unattainable.

As of 2024, Resolution 1701 remains a largely unfulfilled mandate. The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah continues, with the latter acting as a proxy for Iran’s regional ambitions. Despite the international community’s repeated calls for de-escalation, there appears to be no immediate path to the full implementation of the resolution. Efforts to restart the political process, particularly in the aftermath of increased Hezbollah-Israeli clashes, are ongoing, but the situation remains volatile.

The continued failure to address the fundamental issues underlying the conflict—namely Hezbollah’s military power and the regional tensions fueled by Iran—suggests that Resolution 1701 may remain a symbol of lost opportunities unless

Countries Involved in Lebanon’s Conflict and Their Role in Supporting Hezbollah Against Israel

The ongoing conflict between Hezbollah and Israel has drawn in numerous countries, each playing a pivotal role in shaping the geopolitical landscape of the region. Hezbollah, with its strong presence in Lebanon, acts as a proxy force for many of these nations, particularly Iran, which seeks to use Hezbollah as a strategic asset in its wider confrontation with Israel. Below is a detailed list of the key countries involved, along with their respective contributions to Lebanon’s position against Israel.

Iran

Iran is Hezbollah’s primary sponsor, both militarily and financially, providing substantial support to the group since its inception in the early 1980s. Iran uses Hezbollah as a critical component of its “Axis of Resistance” against Israel and Western influence in the Middle East.

Military Support: Iran supplies Hezbollah with advanced weaponry, including precision-guided missiles, rockets, drones, and anti-aircraft systems. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), particularly its Quds Force, provides training, military guidance, and logistical support to Hezbollah fighters.
Financial Aid: Iran is believed to provide Hezbollah with an estimated $700 million annually, funding its operations, recruitment, and political activities.
Strategic Objective: Iran’s backing of Hezbollah aims to deter Israeli and Western actions against Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and to maintain a foothold near Israel’s northern borders.

Syria

Syria, under the Assad regime, has long been a critical ally of Hezbollah and a conduit for Iranian support.

Military Supply Line: Syria serves as a critical supply route for Iranian arms deliveries to Hezbollah, often facilitating the transfer of rockets, missiles, and other military equipment across its borders into Lebanon. Syrian territory is frequently used as a base of operations and storage for Hezbollah’s arsenal.
Political Alliance: The Assad regime shares Hezbollah’s strategic goal of resisting Israeli influence, and Hezbollah’s military support has been vital in keeping Bashar al-Assad in power during the Syrian civil war.
Combat Assistance: Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian civil war on Assad’s behalf has strengthened the relationship between Damascus and Hezbollah, as the group has played a significant role in securing the Syrian government’s survival.

Russia

While Russia’s support for Hezbollah is more indirect, its alliance with Syria and its diplomatic efforts in the region have notable implications.

Diplomatic Protection: Russia provides diplomatic cover to Syria, a critical supporter of Hezbollah, through its veto power at the United Nations Security Council. This effectively shields Hezbollah’s operations from international scrutiny and sanctions.
Military Influence in Syria: Russia’s military presence in Syria has stabilized the Assad regime, which, in turn, supports Hezbollah. Although Russia does not overtly support Hezbollah, its alignment with Iran and Syria indirectly empowers the group.
Strategic Non-Interference: Russia maintains a complex balancing act, engaging with Israel diplomatically while ensuring that Hezbollah and Syria remain functional components of its broader Middle Eastern strategy.

Lebanon

Lebanon, despite its government’s official neutrality, is intrinsically linked to Hezbollah due to the group’s political dominance and military strength.

Political Influence: Hezbollah has substantial influence within Lebanon’s government, holding key positions in the cabinet and parliament. The group’s political power has rendered the Lebanese state incapable of challenging Hezbollah’s military autonomy, particularly in southern Lebanon.
Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF): While the Lebanese Armed Forces cooperate with UNIFIL, they are constrained by Hezbollah’s military presence. The LAF is neither equipped nor politically inclined to confront Hezbollah directly, which limits its ability to implement UNSC Resolution 1701.
Proxy Warfare: Through Hezbollah, Lebanon has become a theater for proxy confrontations between Israel and Iran, drawing Lebanon into regional conflicts despite its government’s official stance of neutrality.

Qatar

Qatar plays a more subtle, yet strategically important role in Lebanon’s conflict dynamics.

Financial Contributions: Qatar has provided financial support to Lebanon’s economy, including reconstruction efforts in Hezbollah-controlled areas following conflicts with Israel. This funding, though not explicitly directed to Hezbollah, aids in stabilizing regions where the group exerts control.
Diplomatic Influence: Qatar’s diplomatic efforts often involve mediation between conflicting parties in the region, including between Israel and Lebanon. Its relationships with both Western powers and regional actors like Iran allow it to navigate these tensions diplomatically, indirectly benefiting Hezbollah through economic stabilization in Lebanon.

France

France, historically a colonial power in Lebanon, maintains significant influence over Lebanese politics and has been involved in efforts to mediate between Lebanon and Israel.

UNIFIL Leadership: France is a leading contributor to UNIFIL and has played a crucial role in attempts to stabilize the southern Lebanese border. However, its diplomatic efforts have been hampered by the growing military dominance of Hezbollah.
Economic Aid: France has been active in rallying international financial support for Lebanon, especially following the 2020 Beirut explosion. Much of this aid is intended to stabilize the Lebanese economy but has faced challenges due to corruption and Hezbollah’s political grip.
Diplomatic Mediation: France has sought to revive diplomatic solutions to the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, often pushing for the full implementation of UNSC Resolution 1701. However, these efforts have yet to yield meaningful results given Hezbollah’s entrenched power.

The United States

The United States has a dual role in the Lebanon-Israel conflict, as both a supporter of Israel and a provider of aid to Lebanon.

Military Aid to Israel: The U.S. provides billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel each year, reinforcing Israel’s defense capabilities in the face of Hezbollah’s growing arsenal.
Economic and Humanitarian Support to Lebanon: While supporting Israel militarily, the U.S. has also provided significant economic aid to Lebanon, particularly aimed at strengthening the Lebanese Armed Forces as a counterbalance to Hezbollah’s military dominance.
Sanctions on Hezbollah: The U.S. has imposed extensive sanctions on Hezbollah and its affiliates, targeting the group’s finances and restricting its ability to conduct international transactions. These sanctions are part of a broader U.S. strategy to weaken Iran’s influence in Lebanon.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has taken a strong stance against Hezbollah, viewing the group as a tool of Iranian expansionism in the Arab world.

Political Isolation: Saudi Arabia has exerted pressure on Lebanon’s government to distance itself from Hezbollah, withdrawing financial aid to the country on several occasions in response to Hezbollah’s growing influence.
Sunni-Shia Rivalry: As part of the broader Sunni-Shia rivalry in the region, Saudi Arabia opposes Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon, siding with Israel and the U.S. in efforts to curb Iranian influence.

Turkey

Turkey’s involvement in Lebanon is more limited but noteworthy.

Diplomatic Engagement: Turkey has expressed interest in mediating regional conflicts, including those involving Lebanon and Israel. While not a direct supporter of Hezbollah, Turkey’s broader ambitions in the region could position it as a mediator in future peace talks.

In conclusion, the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel is fueled by a web of regional and international actors, each pursuing its own interests. Hezbollah’s military dominance in Lebanon, supported by Iran and Syria, has entrenched the group as a central player in this conflict. Despite international efforts to implement UNSC Resolution 1701, the political and military realities in the region make lasting peace a distant goal.

APPENDIX : UN Security Council Resolution 1701 on the War in Lebanon

(11 August 2006)

Source: https://unsco.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/s_res_17012006.pdf

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular Resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) 1680 (2006) and 1697 (2006), as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21), of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), of 4 May 2005 (S/PRST/2005/17), of 23 January 2006 (S/PRST/2006/3) and of 30 July 2006 (S/PRST/2006/35),

Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah’s attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons,

Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,

Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,

Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of the Government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a United Nations force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from southern Lebanon,

Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest,

Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area,

Welcoming the unanimous decision by the Government of Lebanon on 7 August 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in South Lebanon as the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of additional forces from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its duties,

Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution to the conflict,

Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;
Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the Government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;
Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon;
Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;
Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949;
Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the Government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbors, consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;
Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council;
Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

– full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;

– security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;

– full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State;

– no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its Government;

– no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government;

– provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of landmines in Lebanon in Israel’s possession;

Invites the Secretary-General to support efforts to secure as soon as possible agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved;
Requests the Secretary-General to develop, in liaison with relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area, and to present to the Security Council those proposals within thirty days;
Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength of UNIFIL to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):
1. Monitor the cessation of hostilities.
2. Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;
3. Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel.
4. Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons.
5. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;
6. Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph 14.
Acting in support of a request from the Government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;
Requests the Secretary-General urgently to put in place measures to ensure UNIFIL is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this resolution, urges Member States to consider making appropriate contributions to UNIFIL and to respond positively to requests for assistance from the Force, and expresses its strong appreciation to those who have contributed to UNIFIL in the past;
Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel and requests UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11 to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request.
Decides further that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft:
1. The sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories; and
2. The provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above; except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by the Government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11;
Decides to extend the mandate of UNIFIL until 31 August 2007, and expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancement to the mandate and other steps to contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular basis;
Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973 and 1515 (2003) of 19 November 2003.
Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Adopted by the Security Council at its 5511th meeting.