Lebanon-Israel: Generalization of the conflict would serve the interests of this country

Israel's offensive in Lebanon and the Hezbollah's response continues. While Iran accuses the Hebrew state of wanting to “widen” the conflict, a generalization of the war could serve the international ;rece of one of the belligerents.

Israel vows to fight Hezbollah “until victory”. This statement made by the Israeli authorities on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on September 27, after the start of massive attacks launched against Lebanon, raises fears of an escalation of the conflict and especially its extension to the Middle East region. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell had estimated the situation to be “on the brink of total war” a few days earlier.

The determination of the Hebrew state to defeat the Lebanese and pro-Iranian Islamist movement is such that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dismissed the idea of ​​an “immediate 21-day ceasefire” even though it was encouraged by France, the United States, which is Israel's main ally, and the Arab countries. On the contrary, the leader promises to fight “with all necessary force”. But he is following through with actions the floor, since since Monday, September 23, dozens of Israeli strikes have hit the south and east of Lebanon, in addition to the capital Beirut, and have caused more than 700 deaths according to the latest report from the Lebanese authorities.

Israel, however, assures that it is targeting only the areas of the country controlled by Hezbollah, namely a large southern part where the majority of the shots are concentrated and the eastern half of the country. To justify the violence of the attacks of the “Northern Arrows” operation, the Hebrew state says it wants to reassure the security of the Israeli border with Lebanon, along the UN blue line to allow the 60,000 to 70,000 Israeli civilians evacuated from the area to resettle there. But it goes without saying that the Hebrew state is acting in its own interest by weakening Hezbollah, Iran's armed wing in Lebanon. In the pursuit of its operation, the Israeli army has indicated that it is preparing a possible land “entry” of its soldiers into Lebanon. “We are winning” has also launched Benjamin Netanyahu during his speech at the UN General Assembly on Friday, September 27. And the Prime Minister added with regard to Iran: “If you attack us, we will respond.”

Israel accused of trying to “expand” the conflict

With the intensification of strikes against Lebanon, Israel would seek to “regionalize the conflict” according to the analysis of Didier Billion, deputy director at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Iris), at the Parisien. “Israel wants to push Hezbollah to make a serious mistake” capable of poisoning the conflict and replacing the label of attacked country rather than aggressor country on Israel. “In this hypothesis, the support of the West [for the Hebrew State] would become automatic and unconditional” adds the specialist.

200% Deposit Bonus up to €3,000 180% First Deposit Bonus up to $20,000

The Lebanese political scientist and former envoy The United Nations Special Representative for Libya, Ghassan Salamé, also indicated in Le Grand Continent that Iran and its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, are claiming to Israel the goal of triggering a generalized war. An analysis confirmed by the remarks of Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian who accused Israel of wanting to “"expand" the war to the entire Middle East region. The leader estimated that extending the confrontations would not benefit anyone. person" and ensured that Tehran's objective is not to "stabilize" the region.

An all-out war would not suit Iran and its supporters because of a balance of power that favors the Hebrew state, according to the political scientist. While Hezbollah, which represents the largest non-state armed force in the world, still has a significant strike force, “the Israeli air force has obvious supremacy,” explains Ghassan Salam. The same goes for Tehran. Iranian officials confirmed to the New York Times that the risks of a generalized war are too great for Iran, which is already economically weakened by American sanctions and the suspension of air links with several Western countries. Beyond Iran, all its regional relays such as Hezbollah, Hashd, the Houthis, Hamas and Islamic Jihad would suffer from a generalized war. Faced with Israel, Iran has more interest in supporting its allies as it does to multiply the fronts against the Hebrew state without directly entering into conflict.

While neither Hezbollah nor Iran want a generalized war according to Ghassan Salam, they are still organizing strikes and retaliations against Israel to present deterrent forces. “The challenge is to calibrate these reprisals in a way that &;avoid falling into what they consider to be a trap set for them, namely that of an escalation towards a generalized war", specifies the political scientist and former UN special envoy.

The hypothesis of a nuclear escalation

Officially, Iran is not a nuclear power, but it is well known that the country has been strengthening its arsenal since the discovery of an Iranian nuclear program in 2003. The head of American diplomacy Antony Blinken estimated at the end of July that the country was able to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon in “one to two weeks”. Iran's nuclear capabilities have also been estimated by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), whose coordinator indicated: à Euractiv : "As the country refuses to confirm or deny the possession of such weapons, little is known about [Israel's] arsenal, but experts believe the country may be able to deploy nuclear weapons at with the help of missiles, submarines and aircraft ".

The fact remains that Israel is, for its part, equipped with nuclear weapons… like its American ally. "Israel is [moreover] very opaque about the circumstances in which it would use nuclear weapons, so it is difficult to know how close we could be to using nuclear weapons,” according to the ICAN representative. The hypothesis of a nuclear attack cannot be completely ruled out, but it does not seem to be on the table at the moment, neither on one side nor the other. The use of nuclear weapons is clearly prohibited by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), but this only binds states that have ratified it, and no nuclear force has signed the text. However, the first force to launch a nuclear attack would certainly be targeted by similar reprisals, would be held responsible, and would incur heavy sanctions from the international community.