All wars eventually end. Israel has agreed to a ceasefire with Lebanon. Will this bring peace to the Middle East, or will it remain a “fragile” truce? And what will its global consequences be?
What motivated the signing of the Israeli-Lebanese ceasefire?
Military conflict always begins with political disagreements between parties that cannot be resolved peacefully. Ultimately, the victor imposes their position and dictates the terms through force. However, such an outcome is usually achieved through a peace agreement. But is there a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon (or, more accurately, with Hezbollah)? Tel Aviv cannot present such a document; there is only a ceasefire under certain conditions with Lebanon. Therefore, there is no peace in Israeli-Lebanese relations, as the root cause of the conflict remains unresolved.
With the military operation in southern Lebanon, the Israeli authorities have, at this stage, achieved their objectives: the destruction of Hezbollah’s military and other facilities, the elimination of its political and military leaders, and, in Netanyahu’s words, the setting back of this military organisation “by decades”. Accordingly, the military threat from southern Lebanon (Hezbollah) has been eliminated and paralysed for the medium term.
Israel, however, retains the right to self-defence, in other words, “complete freedom of military action”. This is why, as reported by Israel’s Channel 12, Netanyahu stated: “If Hezbollah attempts to re-arm, we will attack them.”
Following the successful military operation, Israel’s next objective is to create a favourable environment for the full restoration of Jewish settlements in the north of the country. This will pose a threat to the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority.
Hezbollah’s defeat inevitably reduces (if not paralyses) the level of Hamas’s resistance in the Gaza Strip. It is no coincidence that, following the announcement of the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, as reported by Agence France-Presse (AFP), Hamas declared its readiness to cease fire in the Gaza Strip and exchange prisoners.
The US has announced that the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah was achieved on the basis of a US proposal.
Some media outlets believe this decision is a consequence of the arrival of the 47th US President, Donald Trump, in the White House. In any case, the Israeli government under Netanyahu remains a staunch supporter of Trump and evidently adheres to certain agreements with him.
The US and French presidents (Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron) issued a joint statement on the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon, the result of their diplomacy (Paris evidently negotiated with Beirut). Accordingly, the US and France have undertaken to guarantee the implementation of this document and prevent the resumption of violence.
The text of the agreement between Israel and Lebanon consists of 13 points, the main condition being Hezbollah’s commitment not to undertake any offensive actions against Israel. The US will be the main mediator in Israeli-Lebanese negotiations to determine a recognised land border.
Of course, any truce (including a ‘fragile’ one) is better than war. The other issue is that this more than year-long Arab-Israeli war has not brought the Palestinian question any closer to a solution. Or perhaps it has rather complicated the prospect of establishing a Palestinian state, despite active political rhetoric and declarative recognitions of Palestine by a number of actors in international relations.
Israel is forcing the Arab side to sign its own impotence by force. Moreover, one of the results of the current war could be a significant change in the ethnic map of Israel, because under the guise of fighting the radical Palestinian organisation Hamas, Tel Aviv is actually forcing the mass transfer of Arab civilians from the Gaza Strip.
As for Hamas itself, the organisation is recognised by Israel and the US as a terrorist organisation. Hamas will have no legal grounds to stay, much less to engage in political activity, on Israeli territory. Members of the organisation will be persecuted in Israel and abroad.
Already now the US is demanding that Ankara extradite Hamas representatives allegedly granted asylum in Turkey. The Turkish MİT knows how the Mossad can carry out targeted sabotage operations abroad by the example of recent events in Iran and Lebanon. And if earlier President Recep Erdogan did not hide the fact of his official contacts with Hamas, in the near future he will have to choose between the U.S. together with NATO and the loser Hamas. This is not an easy question for a country that is strategically dependent on the West for security and finance.
What are the regional and global implications of the Israeli-Lebanese truce?
The end of the active phase of the military conflict between Israel and Hezbollah could, on the one hand, stabilise regional security in the Middle East and establish a new order with Israel playing a key role, while on the other hand it could start a larger conflict in the region between Israel and Iran.
Among the justifications for signing the agreement with Lebanon, Netanyahu noted Israel’s intention to prepare for a more serious conflict with Iran should Tehran launch another (third) major counterattack. The Iranian issue in the Middle East is coming to the forefront, and after President D. Trump’s administration comes to power, another Middle East crisis may become a reality.
As is well known, Donald Trump is characterised by a particular negative attitude towards Iran’s political regime. It was Trump who pulled the US out of the nuclear agreement and the reduction of sanctions on Iran in 2017; during his recent election campaign, the US accused Tehran of attempting to assassinate a Republican candidate.
However, it will not be easy for Trump to authorise a major Israeli war against Iran because:
firstly, Iran is not Hezbollah or Lebanon, but a country with weighty military power and accessibility to the topic of military atom;
secondly, Israel has no direct geographical access to Iran’s borders, and the use of border territories (e.g. Iraq or Azerbaijan) would lead to internationalisation of the conflict and serious destruction in the region;
Thirdly, Iran maintains a strategic partnership with China and equally productive relations with Russia and India, which could draw major geopolitical players into the conflict and upset US-Israeli plans for regional and global dictatorship;
fourthly, the key countries of the Arab East / Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Qatar), the fall of Iran will create negative consequences of total submission to the US on Israel’s terms;
fifthly, the Palestinian issue will be canned for historical uncertainty.
Globally, the Lebanese-Israeli truce should also stimulate the end of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis by the same political technologies. In particular, if in the situation in the Middle East the Americans recognise the military realities and success of Israel, then in Ukraine Washington can expect peace only if it recognises Russia’s territorial acquisitions, NATO’s retreat to its previous positions, and the political neutrality of the territory left behind by the Kiev regime. Only in such a case can a ceasefire in the Middle East be the harbinger of a great peace in Ukraine, the beginning of an era of economic cooperation and competition.
Alexander SVARANTS – Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor
