Lebanon deal: Positive but not without flaws
Along the Israeli-Lebanese border, the next day will be critical as both sides conduct last-minute military exercises before the anticipated adoption of a new security agreement. Historical patterns show an escalation of operations as both sides strive to build beneficial positions before the agreement takes effect. Increased rocket strikes on Israeli land and widespread Israeli Air Force operations throughout Lebanon are anticipated to be the results of this scenario. While military operations have already escalated, as demonstrated by Monday’s strikes against Hezbollah positions in Beirut and reported Israeli operations along the Lebanese-Syrian border, targeting previously identified threats, the civilian population will need to strictly adhere to security protocols to prevent casualties.
Mixed reactions to Lebanon’s agreement
The accord is scheduled to go into effect on Wednesday, with cabinet approval anticipated today. The IDF will continue to monitor Lebanese skies and waterways while halting air and naval attacks against the country. With thousands of reservists already demobilized, ground operations in southern Lebanon will be drastically reduced. However, strategic locations will continue to be manned to thwart infiltration attempts and make sure Hezbollah doesn’t take advantage of the halt in hostilities to reestablish positions in the region. The US Central Command (CENTCOM) will keep a close eye on implementation during the 60-day transition period. As go-betweens for complaints, American officers will continue to have direct lines of communication with leaders of the Lebanese Army and the IDF. Although the idea of French military observers was first put up, Israel refused to approve it unless France changed its mind on the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court for Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant.
A step forward, yet imperfect
The pact expands on UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which was passed in the wake of the 2006 war in Lebanon. Its main goals are to stop Hezbollah from returning to southern Lebanon and to stop the group from producing weapons and expanding its military within Lebanese territory. Enforcement is carried out by UNIFIL forces and reinforced Lebanese Army units, although Israel maintains complete operational autonomy if violations take place. According to the agreed process, military action would only be taken in cases when diplomatic avenues are unsuccessful, and Israeli objections would first be reviewed by American monitors. Although the partnership has certain dangers, it offers major strategic advantages. Having inflicted Hezbollah significant military losses and ending hostilities with Israel in a distinctly superior position while avoiding possible international penalties is one of its advantages. Important diplomatic successes include the United States’ involvement as a guarantor, Lebanon’s separation from the Gaza conflict, and Israel’s ability to concentrate on captive retrieval. The pact also permits military reform, which saves ammunition and lessens the burden on regular and reserve soldiers. Perhaps most importantly, it offers a chance to lessen the influence of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Key shortcomings in Lebanon’s agreement
Notably, the deal does not completely remove ‌military danger to populations in the north or demolish Hezbollah’s organizational framework. The organization is still able to use both its military and political power, and it is probably going to look for ways to reestablish its presence and arsenal in southern Lebanon. As a result, Israel could occasionally be subject to military actions to combat infractions, which might lead to reprisals against populations in the north. The IDF insists that its operational strategy, force deployment, and border security measures would successfully safeguard northern citizens and stop Hezbollah from reentering border regions, although northern community leaders’ demands for a legal buffer zone in southern Lebanon were not fulfilled. Regional rehabilitation, however, goes beyond security concerns; it necessitates all-encompassing government action, including significant financial commitment and resolving long-standing shortcomings in social services, healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Optimism and concerns surround Lebanon’s deal
Though its efficacy will depend on subsequent events, the deal offers Israel a strategic chance to wrap up operations under advantageous circumstances. Inadequate implementation runs the danger of hastening the next conflict, while strict enforcement might ensure long-term peace in the north. This is still essentially a political choice, and the Israeli government is accountable for both its implementation and its collapse, notwithstanding criticism that suggests military pressure led to the accord. After a 34-day conflict between Israel and Lebanon ended in 2006 with the adoption of Resolution 1701, the region had been mostly peaceful for over 20 years. That continued until Hezbollah launched a sympathy strike the day after Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel last year, sparking a confrontation that lasted for more than a year.
