Lebanon Ceasefire: A Temporary Pause, Not a Regional Resolution

The majority of Lebanon’s population eagerly awaited a ceasefire. A prominent Lebanese analyst, present at a Middle East conference in Rome, expressed her inability to sleep as the scheduled ceasefire time approached. “It was like the night before Christmas when you’re a kid. I couldn’t wait for it to happen.” The sense of relief is understandable. Over 3,500 Lebanese citizens have died due to Israeli strikes. Displaced individuals loaded their vehicles before sunrise, attempting to return to what was left of their residences. More than one million people have been compelled to evacuate due to Israeli military operations. Thousands sustained injuries, and the dwellings of tens of thousands more were demolished. Conversely, in Israel, some perceive a missed opportunity to inflict further harm on Hezbollah. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened with leaders of Israel’s northern municipalities, areas that have become deserted with approximately 60,000 civilians relocated southward. According to Israel’s Ynet news website, the meeting was contentious, escalating into a heated argument, as some local officials expressed dismay that Israel was easing pressure on their adversaries in Lebanon and not presenting an immediate strategy for residents to return. The mayor of Kiryat Shmona, a border-adjacent city, stated in a newspaper column that he questioned the ceasefire’s enforceability, calling for Israel to establish a buffer zone in south Lebanon. A survey conducted for Israeli station Channel 12 News revealed that respondents were approximately divided between those who supported and those who opposed the ceasefire. Fifty percent of survey participants consider Hezbollah undefeated, and 30% anticipate the ceasefire’s failure. In late September, during the UN General Assembly in New York, an agreement seemed imminent. US and UK diplomats were confident that a ceasefire closely resembling the current one was on the verge of implementation. All warring parties reportedly indicated readiness to accept a ceasefire founded on the stipulations of Security Council resolution 1701, enacted to conclude the 2006 Lebanon war: Hezbollah would withdraw from the border, to be succeeded by UN peacekeepers and the Lebanese Armed Forces. Concurrently, Israeli forces would progressively depart. However, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the UN podium, delivering an impassioned speech that rejected any halt to Israel’s offensive. At his New York hotel, Netanyahu’s official photographer documented the instant he commanded the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, and the majority of his senior command. Netanyahu’s office subsequently published these photographs, an act perceived as a deliberate affront to American diplomacy. This assassination represented a major escalation and a severe setback for Hezbollah. In the subsequent weeks, Israel’s military caused extensive harm to Hezbollah’s military structure. While it retained the capability to launch rockets across the border and its combatants persisted in engaging Israel’s invading forces, Hezbollah no longer poses the identical threat to Israel. Achieved military success stands as one of multiple elements that collectively convinced Benjamin Netanyahu that this was an an opportune moment to cease operations. Israel’s objectives in Lebanon are narrower compared to those in Gaza and the remaining occupied Palestinian territories. Its aim is to repel Hezbollah from its northern frontier and facilitate the return of civilians to border communities. Should Hezbollah appear to be readying an assault, Israel possesses a supplementary agreement from the Americans authorizing military intervention. In a televised address declaring his choice, Netanyahu enumerated the justifications for a ceasefire. Israel, he asserted, had caused the ground in Beirut to tremble. Now there was a chance ‘to give our forces a breather and replenish stocks,’ he added. Israel had also severed the link between Gaza and Lebanon. Following the late Hassan Nasrallah’s directive for assaults on Israel’s north, issued the day after Hamas initiated conflict on 7 October last year, he had stated these would persist until a ceasefire was achieved in Gaza. Currently, Netanyahu declared, Hamas in Gaza would face increased pressure. Palestinians anticipate a further intensification of Israel’s Gaza offensive. An additional motivation was to focus on what Netanyahu termed the Iranian threat. Inflicting harm on Hezbollah equates to harming Iran. It was developed by the Iranians to establish a menace directly on Israel’s frontier. Hezbollah emerged as the most robust component of Iran’s axis of resistance, the designation for its forward defense network comprising allies and proxies. Similar to Hezbollah’s remaining leaders, its Iranian sponsors also desired a ceasefire. Hezbollah requires a cessation to recover. Iran must halt the geostrategic losses. Its resistance axis no longer serves as a deterrent. Iran’s missile strike on Israel subsequent to Nasrallah’s assassination failed to rectify the damage. Hezbollah was conceived by two individuals, both now deceased, to dissuade Israel from assaulting not only Lebanon but also Iran. These individuals were Qasem Soleimani, leader of the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, who perished in an American drone strike at Baghdad airport in January 2020. The directive was given by Donald Trump during his final weeks in the White House at the conclusion of his first term. The second was Hassan Nasrallah, who died in a massive Israeli air strike in Beirut’s southern suburbs. Hezbollah and Iran’s deterrence approach mirrored Israel’s own deterrent capabilities for nearly two decades following the 2006 war’s conclusion. However, a significant shift resulting from the 7 October attacks was Israel’s resolve to reject limitations on its retaliatory military actions. America, its primary ally, similarly imposed virtually no constraints on the provision or deployment of the weaponry it continuously supplied. Nasrallah and Iran did not comprehend the unfolding events. They misjudged Israel’s transformation. They attempted to inflict a war of attrition on Israel, achieving this for nearly a year. Subsequently, on 17 September, Israel escaped this by detonating miniature bombs embedded within a network of booby-trapped pagers that its intelligence services had deceived Hezbollah into acquiring. Hezbollah was destabilized. Before it could respond with the most potent weapons supplied by Iran, Israel eliminated Nasrallah and the majority of his principal deputies, alongside extensive strikes that demolished weapons caches. This was succeeded by an incursion into South Lebanon and the widespread devastation of Lebanese border communities, in addition to Hezbollah’s tunnel system. A ceasefire in Lebanon does not automatically precede one in Gaza. The situation in Gaza differs. The conflict there extends beyond border security and Israeli captives. It also concerns retribution, Benjamin Netanyahu’s political longevity, and his government’s complete dismissal of Palestinian desires for self-governance. The ceasefire in Lebanon is precarious and intentionally structured to allow time for its implementation. Upon the conclusion of the 60-day period during which it is intended to be active, Donald Trump will return to the Oval Office. President-elect