On September 30 the Israeli Defence Forces started a ‘limited’ ground operation in the south of Lebanon (de facto the Third Lebanese War).
Netanyahu’s government is waging a thorough war to destroy all pockets of resistance against Israel
No force has stopped Israel on this path; neither the Islamic resistance front with epicentres in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq, nor the endless, aggressive threats from Turkish diplomacy nor the appeals of the international community and key countries or South Africa’s lawsuit in the International Criminal Court against the Israeli authorities or Iran’s missile and drone attack and combat activities of the IRGC.
Israel relies on its own effective army and intelligence services, the powerful military and political support of the United States and the global Jewish diaspora, which has the necessary political, economic, financial and technological resources. Tel Aviv, with the assistance of Washington, participates in negotiations on a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, alternating between Cairo, Doha and Paris. However, Israel is not agreeing to a final peace and ceasefire, as it considers it necessary to consistently destroy all other pockets of anti-Israeli resistance.
Naturally, Israel links all these pockets of Islamic resistance to Iran, but Tel Aviv has so far avoided a direct military clash with the Iranian state, proceeding from geographical, political and military considerations.
Nevertheless, the Netanyahu government is trying in every possible way to involve Iran in a regional war and to ensure US military intervention to inflict an irreparable blow to Iran and eliminate the existing political regime in Tehran. Netanyahu publicly warns the Iranian authorities that in the case of their intervention in the war on the side of Lebanon, Israel will strike Iran directly.
Thus, the tactics of Netanyahu, Galant and Halevi repeat the famous saying of Napoleon: “First we engage, then we shall see” (“On s’engage partout, et puis l’on voit”).
Netanyahu is carefully choosing the right political moment and place of events for conducting operations. For example, the upcoming presidential elections in the United States and the fact that the current administration of President J. Biden is on the way out are factors to consider. Tel Aviv can afford to act independently and merely inform the United States of the facts of the situation. The Israeli army is not going on the offensive until intelligence conducts targeted covert operations to eliminate important leadership links in the enemy camp. The situation with the pagers, the elimination of the Secretary General and other leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the IRGC generals is an example of this.
In this regard, Israel proceeds from another saying of Napoleon: “An army of sheep led by a lion will always prevail over an army of lions led by a sheep” (“La troupe de moutons, dirigée par un lion, toujours triomphera sur la troupe de lions, dirigée par un mouton”). In other words, Tel Aviv is trying to eliminate the experienced and talented military leaders of the enemy as much as possible, which should disorient their combat units and disable them for a while to solve the situation on the battlefield.
Having launched an offensive into southern Lebanon, Israel launched a limited ground operation to eliminate Hezbollah strongholds in the border area using elite divisions: 98th Commando, 36th Armoured, 146th Reserve and 91st Galilee Division with the support of the air force, navy and artillery.
The Lebanese army has so far retreated to the Litani River, leaving Hezbollah units to fight the IDF alone in the south of the country. At the same time, the Israeli Air Force, with fire assistance from the US Navy, launched massive strikes on Yemen’s largest port city, Hodeidah, and Israeli airstrikes on Damascus, Syria, followed. In other words, Israel is launching attacks in all directions and thereby increasing the degree of military escalation in the Middle East, regardless of international law or any verbal threats.
What is the external reaction to the latest events in the Middle East?
Naturally, most of the international community condemns such self-will on the part of Israel, its permanent terrorist attacks in Iran, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. The UN is limited to making regular declarations and the United States and Great Britain are blocking the UN Security Council from producing adequate resolutions.
The countries of the Middle East previously did not have an approach of solidarity towards Israel before, and they do not have it now. The Islamic world in its entirety is also not ready to take such drastic measures.
Iran remains Israel’s only consistent opponent, combining diplomacy with military methods to repel Israeli aggression. Tehran hastily began to transfer troops to Syria in the area of the Golan Heights to the borders of Israel. The Iranian authorities and IRGC leaders have repeatedly warned that in the event of Israeli military aggression against Lebanon, Iran will be forced to enter the war. Tehran understands that if they do not act by force, they will show their weakness and inflict an irreparable blow to Iran’s authority in the region.
After Pezeshkian’s peaceful statements in New York and the start of Israel’s military operation in Lebanon, Tehran found itself in a state of confusion. Nevertheless, the likely internal political differences on the topic of negotiations with the West and the military might of the Israeli coalition with the United States and other NATO countries did not stop Iran from undertaking a retaliatory operation. As a result, on October 1, Iran, upon the orders of Rahbar Ali Khamenei, launched an unprecedented missile strike deep into Israel, using about 500 missiles (including hypersonic and ballistic missiles that overcame air defence systems and the Iron Dome). With this strike, Tehran declared its avenging of the murder of I. Haniyeh, H. Nasrallah and the IRGC generals.
President M. Pezeshkian called the strike on Israel a legitimate response to the “aggressive actions” against Iranian interests and that Iran does not seek war, but will “respond harshly to any threat”. He warned Netanyahu that if he responds, an even more serious blow will follow.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry stated that the rocket attack was aimed at Israeli military facilities (including military bases, the Mossad headquarters, the Negev nuclear centre etc.).
Iran does not exclude an asymmetric strike against Israeli interests (for example, against Israeli military bases near the Iranian border).
Turkish President Erdoğan is among the active opponents of the Netanyahu government’s actions. Ankara has so far limited itself to ‘diplomatic battles’, public criticism of Israel, condemnation of Netanyahu’s policy and calls the actions of the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon genocide.
At the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, President R. Erdoğan made new proposals in the event of an escalation of military tension in the region because of Israel’s offensive in Lebanon. The Turkish leader suggested that the General Assembly use force against Israel. “Just as the global alliance stopped Hitler 70 years ago, humanity must stop Netanyahu and his killings”.
The Turkish leader also recognised the weakness of the Islamic world in the face of Israeli aggression; Muslim countries should set an example and stand “at the forefront of global measures” to provide assistance in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Lebanon.
A few of months ago, the Turkish leader threatened Israel with a “night invasion” following their example in Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh. But time went on and Israel, ignoring Erdoğan’s verbal threats, started a war in southern Lebanon. Türkiye, for the time being, cannot deal with either the night or day threat against Israel.
Alexander Svarants—Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
