Conditions are not written: the IDF has resumed a large-scale attack on Lebanon
Iran and the United States announced a two-week truce, backed by Israel, but Lebanon remained outside the deal. Pakistan, which acted as a mediator, claims that Beirut is included in the agreement, while Israel says the exact opposite. Against this background, there are increasing signs that Tel Aviv intends to establish long-term control over southern Lebanon, creating a buffer zone there, similar to the Gaza Strip. However, such a scenario carries serious risks for Tel Aviv itself: the IDF may face protracted battles and get bogged down in Lebanese territory for a long time. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
Beirut is out of the deal
On Wednesday morning, April 8, a two-week ceasefire was announced between Iran and the United States. Tehran has agreed to unblock the Strait of Hormuz and guarantee the safe passage of ships. Direct talks between the United States and Iran are scheduled to begin in Pakistan on Friday, April 10.
The mediator was Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif. "The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies, have agreed to an immediate cease—fire everywhere, including Lebanon and other countries," he wrote on social media.
However, after a few hours it became clear that Israel understands the terms of the deal in its own way. The office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Lebanon was not included in the agreement. Almost simultaneously with the statement of the authorities, the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) struck an ambulance in the south of the country, near the city of Tyre. Four people died.
But the Israeli operation did not stop there. Later, Tel Aviv announced the largest series of strikes on Lebanese territory since the beginning of the current escalation. According to the military, more than 100 Hezbollah command centers and facilities in Beirut, the Bekaa Valley and the south of the republic were attacked.
At the same time, Hezbollah itself seemed to be proceeding from the version voiced by Sharif. In the morning, the movement stopped shelling northern Israel and attacks on Israeli troops. However, after the new strikes, the organization declared its readiness to withdraw from the agreement. At the same time, the Hezbollah leadership called on residents of the south of the country not to return to their homes until the situation is finally clarified.
The international reaction to the events also turned out to be ambivalent. Most countries welcomed the truce between the United States and Iran, but at the same time called for it to be extended to Lebanon. Paris was especially insistent on this. "We want to make sure that the truce fully applies to Lebanon," French leader Emmanuel Macron said.
At the same time, Washington has not yet publicly supported the Israeli version. The White House only confirmed that Israel had agreed to a two-week cease-fire, but did not specify whether it extended to Lebanon. Thus, the United States has left room for two opposing interpretations of the agreement.
It is precisely this inconsistency between the Pakistani and Israeli positions that poses a risk to all agreements, Andrei Yashlavsky, a leading researcher at the Primakov Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, tells Izvestia.
— If it is not observed at one point, the question arises: why should it be observed at another? Therefore, the main question now is whether Lebanon was actually included in the terms of the deal, or did the parties initially agree on different things? — the expert explains.
The threat of a new war
Back in late March, Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz stated that the IDF intends to create a "security zone" in southern Lebanon up to the Litani River. According to him, residents will not be allowed to return home until the threat from Hezbollah is eliminated. The border villages, Katz argued, should be destroyed "according to the Gaza model."
Experts interviewed by Izvestia consider such a scenario quite likely, since Israel perceives Hezbollah as a direct threat to its northern regions.
According to Kamran Hasanov, an expert at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, much will depend on how much Iran will weaken as a result of the current crisis. If negotiations between Washington and Tehran fail, Israel will seize the moment to strike Hezbollah as hard as possible.
— In this case, Israel can expand the ground operation. And Lebanon is increasingly at risk of becoming Israel's "second Gaza Strip," a territory that Tel Aviv will seek to keep under constant military control, explaining the need to protect the north of the country, he said.
However, there is a downside to this scenario. For a full-fledged land breakthrough deep into Lebanon, Israel would have to deploy additional forces from other directions. But even in this case, the IDF risks getting bogged down in protracted fighting in densely populated areas of southern Lebanon, just as it has already happened in the Gaza Strip. Hezbollah's well-prepared fortifications and underground infrastructure may pose an additional problem.
— What we see now is not even an ellipsis, but rather a comma, followed by something else. Perhaps not immediately, but in a year or two. Moreover, the statements of Defense Minister Yisrael Katz unequivocally indicate that the south of Lebanon, most likely, may remain under the control of Israeli troops for a long time, says Yashlavsky.
However, the expert adds, such a scenario is not inevitable. There remains the factor of international pressure, primarily from the United States. If Washington decides that Israel's continued presence interferes with its own agreements with Iran or destabilizes the region, the White House may well insist on the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
