Lebanon: A Pattern of Escalation in the Middle East

The latest wave of escalations in Lebanon is not a coincidence but part of a broader pattern of escalation. The U.S. strikes on the Houthis in Yemen were quickly followed by the collapse of the ceasefire in Gaza, and now, as anticipated, a rocket fire from Lebanon has provided Israel with the justification to escalate further. This strongly suggests that Israel is laying the groundwork for a wider regional conflict.

This escalation is not only shaped by international dynamics but also by internal Israeli politics. Netanyahu's government, under pressure from far-right factions, is actively pushing for expanded military action. The reappointment of Itamar Ben-Gvir as police minister is not an isolated decision but a signal that Israel is preparing for prolonged conflict. With these developments unfolding in quick succession, it is becoming clear that unless a major concession is reached, the region is heading toward another cycle of war.

Tensions between Israel and Lebanon have escalated once again, threatening an already fragile ceasefire. In recent days, rockets were fired from Lebanon towards Israel, the first such attack since the ceasefire agreement took effect. In response, Israel has vowed to retaliate severely, further raising concerns about the truce’s stability. However, this is not an isolated incident. Since the ceasefire began, Israel has continued to carry out near-daily airstrikes on what it claims are Hezbollah military targets, justifying its actions by citing the group’s presence and alleged rearmament. At the same time, Israel maintains military positions in five locations in southern Lebanon, something the Lebanese government considers a violation of its sovereignty and a breach of the ceasefire agreement, which stipulated a full Israeli withdrawal. While Israeli forces claim these moves are defensive, they have kept tensions high, fuelling speculation that Israel is both willing and ready to return to war.

The original ceasefire agreement, designed to last 60 days, was meant to create space for negotiations toward a more lasting truce. Under its terms, Israel was expected to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah had agreed to relocate its fighters and weaponry north of the Litani River, allowing the Lebanese army to move in and secure the region. However, instead of fully withdrawing, Israeli forces have remained stationed in Lebanese territory, with officials referring to their presence as a “temporary” deployment, an occupation that risks collapsing the ceasefire altogether. Israel has now started justifying potential intervention by claiming the situation in southern Lebanon has become too chaotic to ignore.

The timing of this renewed escalation aligns closely with political shifts in both Israel and the United States. Recent ceasefires in the Middle East have coincided with Washington’s shifting focus towards Europe, particularly as the U.S. navigates its stance on the war in Ukraine. During this period, Trump has reengaged in diplomatic manoeuvring with Russian President Vladimir Putin while downplaying support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, most notably when he was hosted in the Oval Office and treated with open disdain. Now, as the political landscape evolves, it appears that Netanyahu has received a green light to resume hostilities in the Middle East. This follows a familiar pattern, when U.S. priorities shift away, conflicts in the region temporarily de-escalate, only to reignite when the timing is deemed suitable. Recent Israeli military actions in Gaza, Yemen, and Lebanon suggest that these escalations come with the necessary American blessing.

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this return to conflict comes at a politically opportune moment. Facing mounting pressure from far-right factions demanding a resumption of war, Netanyahu has been using military action in the West Bank as a temporary appeasement tool. However, with the far-right growing increasingly restless, he has now moved towards a broader conflict. The timing of this escalation comes in no surprise with his reappointment of Itamar Ben-Gvir as police minister, despite objections from Israel’s Attorney General. This suggests that Netanyahu is once again relying on military aggression to consolidate political support.

Moreover, Netanyahu’s domestic challenges are intensifying. He remains embroiled in corruption scandals, while opposition to his leadership continues to grow. His recent moves to push out senior officials who challenge him, including the abrupt decision to terminate the tenure of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, underscore his efforts to eliminate dissent within his government. By reigniting a multi-front war, Netanyahu appears to be betting on military escalation as a means to rally nationalist support and divert attention from his own political vulnerabilities.

Accordingly, it remains uncertain whether the ceasefire can hold or if the region is heading towards another prolonged and devastating war. One thing, however, is clear the current escalations are not merely spontaneous military responses but represent deeper political calculations.

While the current escalation between Israel and Hezbollah raises concerns, Lebanon is not Gaza, and the situation does not necessarily point to an all-out war. However, this does not mean that Israel will refrain from hostilities against Lebanon. One major factor is Hezbollah’s declining strength, which reduces its ability to sustain prolonged conflict. The group has suffered significant blows in recent months, most notably with Israel’s assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, an event that has shaken Hezbollah’s leadership structure and strategic calculations. Beyond targeted assassinations, regional shifts have also worked against Hezbollah. Iran, its primary backer, is facing mounting economic and political pressures, limiting its capacity to offer full support. The fall of Assad’s regime in Syria, whether through internal collapse or external intervention, further disrupting Hezbollah’s supply lines and strategic depth. This overall degeneration of Hezbollah’s strength may embolden Israel to escalate military actions against Lebanon, though likely without crossing into full-scale war.

Another factor at play is Europe’s role, or lack thereof. While the European Union theoretically has leverage over Israel, given that the EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, its ability to act remains limited. Calls for the bloc to pressure Israel, whether through sanctions or diplomatic measures, have gained traction, particularly in response to violations of international law. Yet, the EU’s foreign policy decisions require unanimity among its 27 member states, a near-impossible feat when it comes to the Middle East. Moreover, Europe’s focus is elsewhere; with the ongoing war in Ukraine and Trump’s open disdain for “free riders” in NATO, European leaders are preoccupied with their own security concerns. Even countries with deep historical ties to Lebanon, such as France, find themselves weakened and distracted, making any substantial intervention unlikely.

Yet, this highlights a crucial point. The recent waves of ceasefires in the Middle East were never sustainable. From the outset, it was clear that they were temporary political manoeuvres rather than genuine efforts at de-escalation. These ceasefires were not based on a mutual commitment to halting hostilities or engaging in negotiations but were instead driven by political calculations, particularly Trump’s arrogance in presenting himself as the sole figure capable of ending wars, whether in the Middle East or in Europe. The Biden administration had to pressure Netanyahu into accepting a ceasefire before Trump’s arrival, as he repeatedly claimed he alone could bring stability. Now, a few months into Trump’s return, the conditions are shifting again. Ceasefires built on rushed political deals rather than careful planning are bound to collapse. The root causes of these conflicts remain unresolved, and when leaders see political benefits in war, they will not hesitate to reignite hostilities.

With the latest developments, it is becoming increasingly clear that the region is heading toward a period of heightened chaos and instability. Israeli leaders, with full American backing, appear set on resuming war, expanding the conflict beyond its current battlegrounds. The escalation began with joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on the Houthis in Yemen, followed by renewed hostilities in Gaza, and now Lebanon is once again in the crossroads. Israeli strikes continue under the pretext of countering Hezbollah, despite the group’s weakened position due to recent assassinations and shifting regional dynamics. But the conflict will not stop there.

While Iraq has enjoyed relative stability in recent years, it is now being mentioned by Israel as a potential battleground. Israel accuses Iran of channelling fresh stocks of long-range missiles and explosive drones to its militias there. These tensions raise the real possibility that Iraq could be the next country dragged into Israel’s expanding regional war. Syria, already fractured by years of war, remains another possible target. Unless a serious and solid concession is reached, this cycle of violence will only intensify, with more countries being pulled into a widening conflict that has no clear resolution in sight.

Al Habtoor Research Centre’s Commentary articles allow researchers to provide quick, informed responses to ongoing topics, emphasizing personal perspectives and expert opinions without the weight of exhaustive citations. This ensures agility in addressing rapidly evolving subjects and enriches the discourse with authentic insights.