How Israel could wage all-out war with Hezbollah: The options now available to the IDF from stepping up bombing raids and creating a ‘buffer zone’ to a full-scale invasion of Lebanon | DAILY MAIL

Avi Melamed quoted by David Averre in the article For Daily Mail, How Israel could wage all-out war with Hezbollah: The options now available to the IDF from stepping up bombing raids and creating a ‘buffer zone’ to a full-scale invasion of Lebanon.

source article here >>

Former Israeli intelligence official and regional analyst Avi Melamed added that the evacuation of tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians from their homes has the additional advantage of ramping internal pressure on Hezbollah and Lebanese authorities.

Israeli officials vowed to do ‘whatever is needed’ to secure the northern border

The IDF could now pursue a variety of military operations against Hezbollah 

Comes as observers make desperate calls for a ceasefire amid fears of major war

Israel yesterday pounded Hezbollah targets across eastern and southern Lebanon in round-the-clock strikes that left 492 people dead and more than a thousand injured.

The brutal bombardment was the latest step in a week-long campaign of intense military operations against the Lebanese militant group which began when thousands of pagers and radios used by Hezbollah members exploded last Tuesday.

Now, with the region seemingly teetering on the brink of a full-scale war, there is much speculation over what the next move of Israel’s Defence Forces may be.

Israel’s hawkish defence minister Yoav Gallant has said they ‘will do whatever is needed’ to cripple Hezbollah’s military capabilities close to the border and allow displaced residents from Israel’s northern territories to return home safely.

This became a formal goal of Israel’s war days prior to the start of their renewed attacks in Lebanon last week.

Military spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari claimed Monday’s widespread airstrikes had inflicted heavy damage on Hezbollah – but he refused to give a timeline for the ongoing operation and cautioned Israel may even launch a ground invasion of its northern neighbour.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah has vowed to continue fighting until a ceasefire in Gaza is agreed upon, with deputy leader Naim Qassem declaring the group is now entering ‘an open-ended battle of reckoning’ with Israel.

The group has not yet unleashed the full fury of its heavily armed paramilitary or missile stockpiles, but has sent hundreds of rockets across the border.

With a ceasefire in Gaza seemingly dead in the water, it appears there are three courses of action that Israel’s military could pursue in an attempt to force Hezbollah to withdraw further north.

Option 1: Death from above

Based on the comments of Rear Admiral Hagari, IDF officials are content with the effects of their bombing campaigns thus far.

More than 1,000 sites are said to have been hit yesterday alone, and those attacks came after a senior Hezbollah commander and dozens of other militants were killed in a strike on Beirut Friday.

Hundreds more targets were struck by Israeli Air Force jets and IDF drones over the weekend.

Hezbollah has attempted to fire back, sending hundreds of rockets across the border into Israel around the northern city of Haifa and parts of the occupied West Bank, but Israel’s vaunted air defence systems intercepted the majority of them and no casualties were reported.

Given the efficacy of its missile, drone and airstrikes on Hezbollah targets to this point, the IDF may opt to continue in this vein, aiming to degrade the Lebanese group’s military capabilities and supply routes in the east and south of Lebanon without risking soldiers on the ground.

Former Israeli intelligence official and regional analyst Avi Melamed added that the evacuation of tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians from their homes has the additional advantage of ramping internal pressure on Hezbollah and Lebanese authorities.

‘Israel last week conducted a successful airstrike that eliminated the upper echelon of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan force,’ he said.

‘Now, Israel has begun utilising intelligence developed over the last 18 years to strike at Hezbollah’s weapon caches, many of which have been concealed in residential homes.

‘For Iran and Hezbollah, the mass exodus of families from southern Lebanon to the north poses a growing threat of civil unrest that could undermine Hezbollah’s influence and, by extension, Tehran’s control over Lebanon.’

However, much like Hamas, Hezbollah has developed an intricate web of underground tunnels and is deeply entrenched in towns and cities across southern Lebanon.

The IDF will never be able to guarantee a total eradication of Hezbollah’s Radwan forces and military capabilities close to the border by airstrikes alone.

And Hezbollah has an extensive stockpile of missiles and rockets which in theory could threaten air force planes and overwhelm Israeli air defences if fired en-masse.

In the absence of a ceasefire deal and a cessation of hostilities, the IDF may turn to a limited ground operation to force its foe away from the border and guarantee the security of settlements in northern Israel.

Option 2: ‘Limited invasion’ to secure the border

For now, Israeli officials say they are focused on aerial operations.

But Miri Eisen, a senior fellow at Israel’s International Institute for Counter-Terrorism at Reichman University and former IDF Colonel, said a limited ground incursion could be ordered to ensure Hezbollah can not carry out anything similar to Hamas’s October 7 attack.

‘I do think that there’s the possibility of a ground incursion because in the end we need to move the Hezbollah forces (away from the border),’ she said.

The mouth of the Litani River, often used as a rough marker to illustrate a theoretical buffer zone, is 18 miles from the border, but in some places comes within two miles of Israeli-controlled territory.

Major Moshiko Giat, an IDF special forces soldier with combat experience in Israel’s 2006 war with Lebanon, told the Telegraph he believes such a buffer zone would be roughly six to 12 miles deep.

But even a limited operation such as this would constitute a major military undertaking – and carries significant risks.

Drawing from the strategy used in previous conflicts, such an operation would likely involve several IDF divisions, with estimates suggesting around 10,000 to 30,000 troops would be needed to clear the area and establish a clear buffer zone.

Hezbollah’s fighting force, which measures between 25,000 and 50,000 according to various Israeli and US estimates, has honed its tactics through decades of conflict – including their successful resistance against Israeli forces during the 2006 war in which Major Giat fought.

Hezbollah boasts a range of anti-tank and anti-air systems, dozens of tanks and armoured vehicles, and its fighters are adept at guerrilla warfare, intimately familiar with the terrain, and would enjoy the advantage of highly fortified positions.

Amal Saad, a Lebanese researcher on Hezbollah who is based at Cardiff University, said of the group: ‘It is extremely capable – and I would say more effective than Israel – when it comes to ground war, underground offensive, and we’ve seen this historically, particularly in 2006,’ she said.

Founder of the Israel Defence and Security Forum, former IDF Brigadier General Amir Avivi, insisted to the Telegraph that such an operation would be more than manageable, suggesting it would take ‘a few weeks’ to clear the area south of the Litani river of Hezbollah forces.

‘Lebanon is not as densely populated as Gaza, and the towns and villages in southern Lebanon are pretty empty. This is not going to be as complicated as what we saw in Gaza.

‘I think it can take a few weeks because it’s going to be very, very intensive. And also there will be huge pressure inside Lebanon on Hezbollah to stop… I would assume that the war is not going to be long.’

But Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said last week a ground incursion would turn southern Lebanon into a death trap for Israeli fighters, adding that his troops could fight Israeli forces in southern Lebanon and fire rockets at northern Israel at the same time.

What’s more, Israel’s previous occupation of southern Lebanon – which lasted 18 years from 1982 to 2000, showed just how challenging it is to maintain control of Lebanon’s south in the face of ongoing guerrilla warfare.

After withdrawing from Beirut, Israeli forces patrolled a ‘security zone’ roughly 10 miles deep, but Hezbollah conducted a tireless campaign of guerrilla warfare, launching rocket attacks, ambushes and suicide bombings on IDF troops.

Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak was eventually forced to order a full withdrawal amid public outcry at the costly operation.

Nevertheless, Israeli political analyst Michael Horowitz said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to pressure Hezbollah to agree to halt its cross-border attacks even without a ceasefire deal in Gaza, which has been a prerequisite for the Iran-backed militant group.

‘I think the Israeli strategy is clear: Israel wants to gradually put pressure on Hezbollah, and strike harder and harder, in order to force it to rethink its alignment strategy with regard to Gaza,’ Horowitz said.

Retired Colonel Eisen added that Israeli leadership saw ramped-up military operations against Hezbollah as an essential step towards striking any agreement to de-escalate.

‘The language they (Hezbollah) speak is a language of violence and power and that means actions are very important against them,’ she said.

‘I wish it was otherwise. But I have not seen any other language that works.’

Option 3: Full-scale invasion risking all-out war

Though a limited ground incursion into southern Lebanon may ultimately be seen as a necessary display of violence and power by Israel’s leaders and military officials, other analysts warn Hezbollah may consider the move an untenable escalation, with tensions already at boiling point.

Hezbollah’s leader Nasrallah has drawn a line in the sand, refusing to stop fighting Israel until the war in Gaza is brought to a close, and has styled the conflict with Israel as part of a wider battle for the balance of power in the region.

But the war in Gaza has proceeded unabated since his declaration, and now Hezbollah is facing an onslaught from Israel that shows no signs of stopping unless Nasrallah orders his troops to retreat.

Withdrawing now would likely be seen as a crippling defeat, one that Nasrallah and Hezbollah chiefs are unlikely to accept.

Should Israel launch a ground incursion, Hezbollah may not only fight Israel’s troops on the ground – it could seek to retaliate with massive force, turning to its fearsome stockpile of 150,000 to 200,000 rockets and missiles.

The group has already launched hundreds of short-range, unguided rockets into Israel, but a larger, coordinated attack would overwhelm Israeli air defences and could wreak havoc on Israeli population centres.

In that scenario, Israel’s top brass will feel they have no choice but to launch a full-on invasion of Lebanon.

For this reason, the International Crisis Group think tank said in a report released on Monday that the current state of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict ‘poses grave dangers’.

‘The point may be approaching at which Hezbollah decides that only a massive response can stop Israel from carrying out more attacks that impair it further,’ it said.

‘It might also decide that it needs to hit back hard as long as it believes it can still manage the fallout of severe retaliation that would disable the group’s command-and-control capabilities.’

A full-scale Israeli invasion of Lebanon, in which mass bombing campaigns clear the way for IDF troops to march on Beirut, would undoubtedly devastate Lebanon’s civilian population and infrastructure and would almost certainly precipitate considerable casualties on both sides.

In 1982 – the last time Israeli forces forced a path through Lebanon and besieged Beirut to oust the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) – some 15,000 to 20,000 people, many of whom were civilians, were killed.

UN agencies estimate an ‘uncontrolled conflict’ between Israel and Hezbollah today would displace up to one million people – almost a fifth of Lebanon’s population – and the country is already reliant on meagre stockpiles of food and fuel.

Such a conflict may also drag in Hezbollah’s chief backer and regional power Iran, the consequences of which hardly bear thinking about.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian said today that its ally Hezbollah ‘cannot stand alone’ against Israel, which he said was ‘being defended and supported and supplied by Western countries, by European countries and the United States’.

He said Iran had ‘never started a war in the last 100 years’ and was ‘not looking to cause insecurity’.

But he insisted that Iran ‘will never allow a country to force us into something and threaten our security and territorial integrity’, while his foreign minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X that ‘Iran will NOT remain indifferent’ to the conflict.

The Islamic Republic has thousands upon thousands of long-range and precision-guided missiles alongside hundreds of thousands of mid-range cruise missiles.

This appears to be the worst-case scenario feared by Israeli defence experts – a coordinated attack in which Iran, Hezbollah and other members of the so-called Axis of Resistance launch wave after wave of missile and drone strikes that overwhelm Israel’s air defences and devastate towns and cities.

Several analysts told MailOnline that terrifying prospect is unlikely because it would prompt the US to come to Israel’s defence – and could even raise the spectre of Israel turning to its secretive stockpile of nuclear weapons.

But it nonetheless remains a possibility that would plunge the region into chaos and result in widespread destruction – not only of Lebanon, but Israel too.

Option 4: De-escalation, peace negotiations

Despite the chances of a negotiated settlement looking bleak, all-out war is not inevitable.

After all, both sides understand the risks and the penalties of such a conflict.

The tens of thousands of lives lost in 1982, and the devastating 34-day war in the summer of 2006 in which more than 1,200 Lebanese people lost their lives along with 160 Israelis, will remain fresh in the memory.

‘This is an extremely dangerous situation, but one that for me still leaves room for diplomacy to avoid the worst,’ said Horowitz.

Many analysts feel that negotiating a ceasefire in Gaza is the main path to simultaneously ending hostilities in Lebanon.

This presents Hezbollah an off-ramp, and could even allow Nasrallah to spin a narrative that his resistance in the face of Israeli aggression played a role in supporting the plight of the Palestinian people and putting an end to the war 180 kilometres to the south.

But Professor Andreas Krieg, Senior Lecturer in Security Studies at King’s College London, expressed scepticism, telling MailOnline: ‘We’re far away from a negotiated settlement in Gaza, and I don’t see the Netanyahu government making any concessions.’

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has promised ‘total victory’ over Hamas and the return of all the hostages held in Gaza – goals that many believe are simply unachievable.

What’s more, many analysts and observers accuse Netanyahu of having a personal stake in forging on with war in Gaza.

His governing coalition relies on far-right ministers who want to permanently reoccupy the Palestinian enclave and have threatened to bring down the government if he concedes too much.

That would force early elections that could drive him from power at a time when he is on trial for corruption – charges that he will not face while war rages on.

With this in mind, the International Crisis Group reported that US officials have in their latest diplomacy have tried to decouple the two theatres – Gaza and the northern border – by pushing for an outcome in Lebanon that is not contingent on Gaza.

But that too seems doomed to fail, given Nasrallah’s open commitment to attacking Israel until the war in Gaza is brought to an end.

In any case, it seems that a successful deal to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah would need to see Hezbollah pull its troops back north of the Litani River – or another marker deemed suitable by Israel.

Israeli officials have said this a requirement to guarantee the security of its northern territories and allow displaced citizens to return home.

However, Firas Maksad of the Middle East Institute pointed out that Hezbollah ‘may drop their militia fatigues and abandon fortified positions’ in Lebanon’s south, but it is improbable that they will withdraw completely.

Whether Israeli officials are able to accept such a compromise remains to be seen.

Avi Melamed quoted by David Averre in the article For Daily Mail, How Israel could wage all-out war with Hezbollah: The options now available to the IDF from stepping up bombing raids and creating a ‘buffer zone’ to a full-scale invasion of Lebanon.

If you want to have a better understanding of the news and what really drives the unfolding events…
Read the latest book of Avi Melamed,
INSIDE THE MIDDLE EAST | ENTERING A NEW ERA, available now >>>

Follow me on Twitter @AviMelamed; Facebook @InsideTheMiddleEast; for more Videos on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/AviMelamed

I can always be reached at Av*@Av********.com