The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which turned into a long Israeli occupation, began with a military mission against militants. And now the United States finds itself in an embarrassing position.
Israel presented the incursion into southern Lebanon as a quick mission against Hezbollah, but there is a danger that this operation could turn into a prolonged invasion, as has happened before, writes Politico.
This time, Israel relies on the fact that the Shiite militia supported by Iran is so hit and demoralized after the elimination of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, that its forces are disorganized and cannot respond properly.
But when you stir up a hornet's nest, you must know that the consequences can be painful. "You know how an invasion begins. I'm not sure you know how it will develop and how it might end. The previous experience we had with a ground operation in Lebanon lasted 18 years. It was a total failure, a strategic failure. I don't understand what the exact strategy is here," warned former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a fierce critic of Netanyahu, in an interview for Politico.
"I think Bibi (Benjamin Netanyahu) is being influenced, overwhelmed by events, and losing perspective," he added.
Israel's Calculations
Apparently, the objective is to force Hezbollah forces back to the northern side of the so-called Blue Line, the Litani River, about 29 km north of the border, in accordance with a United Nations resolution that ended the 2006 war in Lebanon. If successful, the approximately 80,000 Israelis evacuated from northern Israel following Hezbollah attacks could return to their homes.
Olmert believes that no one should doubt: the Israeli forces will be able to push the militants to the Blue Line, but "it could cost us quite a bit in terms of human lives."
However, he has some simple questions about this operation: "what prevents them (Hezbollah militants) from returning to the border? Will we stay there forever to protect southern Israel? Will they meanwhile consider building settlements in southern Lebanon? In other words, what exactly do they want to do?"
Paul Salem, a long-time observer of Lebanon and former president of the Middle East Institute, says there are reasons for Israel to believe that Hezbollah is vulnerable now: "Hezbollah is in shock. They are distrustful. They are in disarray. Some of them blame Iran for not helping them enough."
"Their options are very limited. I think they will have to focus on saving themselves. They have not yet chosen a successor to Nasrallah. They need to appoint new leaders, who will be targeted by the Israelis when they are named. They have weeks, if not months, where they are just trying to survive," he added.
What Happened in '82 Could Repeat Itself Now
On the other hand, the history of Israeli involvement in Lebanon also offers many warning signals.
The 1982 invasion, which triggered the Second Lebanon War, was ordered by the then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Under the coordination of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, a former general, the initial objective of the incursion was to stop Palestinian attacks from Lebanon and push the Palestine Liberation Organization north of the Litani River. But it turned into a broader operation to install a pro-Israeli Christian government, and Israeli forces remained in southern Lebanon for 18 years.
"Remember that Israel's 1982 incursion was also considered a limited and localized incursion. But, as Sharon realized, there will always be someone shooting at you from the next hill, so self-defense requires us to take that hill... and so on, until they reach Beirut," noted Lebanese commentator Michael Young in a post on X.
Young suspects that Israel would like more, not just to push Hezbollah south of the Litani. There are also indications that the thinking behind the incursion, codenamed "Operation Northern Arrows," has much larger ambitions.
The IDF's communication about "limited, localized, and targeted ground raids" does not match the much grander rhetoric used by Netanyahu in recent days. He emphasized that his ultimate goal is to undermine Tehran's clerical leadership and to strike the Iranians who finance Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
In short, it is a decisive chance, which comes once in a generation, to reshape the politics of the region.
The "escalation for de-escalation" strategy risks being overridden by Israel's larger ambitions and Hezbollah's resistance, warns retired US General Joseph Votel. He expressed concern that Hezbollah could pursue a war of attrition strategy "to draw Israel into a prolonged conflict that will undermine its government, economy, and global standing - buying time to recover from recent setbacks and perhaps creating an opportunity for its own strategic strike."
Another Humiliation for the United States
One of the negative effects of the Israeli operation is putting America in an embarrassing position, with serious implications for its credibility globally.
The pattern of American impotence and Israeli defiance was repeated after Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel, resulting in the deaths of 1,200 people and leading to the invasion of Gaza, and now in the conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Often, Netanyahu acts first and consults the US later, even though his actions exacerbate fears that the US will be dragged into a disastrous regional war.
For example, Washington was not informed in advance about the Israeli airstrike on Friday that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Due to this approach by Israel, the Biden administration has often seemed more like a spectator than an active player in events, as a leader of a superpower should act, as stated in an analysis published by CNN.
This is not just a diplomatic issue. Every time an American president is publicly rebuffed or ignored, there is a cost to American prestige and the perception of US global power. And it increases the likelihood that Biden, who came into office claiming to be an expert in foreign policy, will leave the White House in a few months with a legacy tainted by a violent war in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu's bet that, despite all its reservations, the Biden administration will remain the guarantor of Israeli security has paid off. For example, in April, the US and its allies helped repel a massive Iranian rocket and drone attack against Israel. As a deep symbolic irony, a CNN analysis found that the bombs used in the attack on Nasrallah were made in America.
The Middle East Hinders America from Focusing on Its Major Adversary
The White House is desperately seeking not to be absorbed by another conflict in the Middle East, considering the two decades it took to withdraw US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The outposts of American soldiers still in the region, including in Syria and Iraq, remain highly vulnerable to attacks by Iranian proxies.
There are also opposing military perceptions between Israel and the US. The fight against Hamas and Hezbollah goes smoothly after the brilliant success of detonating pagers and walkie-talkie stations. So why not strike while the iron is hot, Netanyahu asks?
On the other hand, the weakness of Israel's center and left-wing parties betrays a lack of alternative leaders like the late Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, who were ideologically and temperamentally in tune with American presidents.
The rise of fiery and radical leaders like Nasrallah and Hamas officials also means that there are no partners on the other side for the traditional pacification pursued by the United States. Even the legendary Secretary of State and peace advocate James Baker would have struggled with this distribution of regional characters, CNN notes.
One thing is certain: the longer the conflict lasts, the greater the danger that the intensifying fights in the region will merge into a single dangerous multi-front war and lead to a direct confrontation between the US and its main adversary, Iran. A regional war could further divert the US from mobilizing for its new confrontation with China.
T.D.