Hebrew media sources reported that a state of skepticism prevails in Israeli military circles regarding the long-term strategic utility of controlling areas deep in South Lebanon, specifically the historic Shaqif Castle. Despite the occupation's claims that the field expansion aims to remove threats to northern settlements, assessments indicate that these steps will not lead to the disarmament of Hezbollah without achieving tangible political gains in ongoing negotiations.
Press reports stated that the army command hopes to use the ground movement as a political leverage, at a time when fortified centers of gravity in the capital Beirut remain far from being radically affected by field operations. Senior military sources admitted that the ability to effectively influence the disengagement between the Iranian and Lebanese fronts remains limited, which weakens the chances of achieving the major strategic goals of the military campaign.
The Israeli security establishment views the control of the South Lebanon highlands and Shaqif Castle as a 'tactical victory' that gives forces an advantage in surveillance and directing fire towards the Nabatieh region. However, the strategic question remains about the extent of this presence's impact on Hezbollah's future and military capabilities, especially since the current field control has not radically changed the face of the campaign so far.
Operations deep in Lebanese territory, according to the occupation's view, aim to neutralize direct threats represented by anti-tank fire and drones targeting border settlements. Although the army believes it has succeeded in deterring some of these threats, dealing with the danger of drones and rocket barrages remains limited, keeping the security of the north in a state of continuous danger.
In a related context, War Minister Yisrael Katz pledged that forces would remain in the areas they controlled to form part of a permanent 'security zone,' which raises questions about the human and material cost of this presence. Military sources confirm that the army currently does not plan to enter the city of Nabatieh, although it represents a strategic center of gravity for the party, fearing involvement in a long-term attrition that does not serve political goals.
Field data indicate that forces are currently working to clear the resistance's infrastructure up to what is known as the 'Yellow Line,' a task that may take many additional weeks. Military officials warn that defending settlements will be more difficult in the event of withdrawal, as threats will return directly to the borders, putting the occupation in a difficult equation between costly presence or fragile withdrawal.
Through ground pressure, the occupation seeks to achieve two crucial accomplishments at the negotiating table: severing the dependency between Tehran and Beirut, and launching a process to disarm Hezbollah in the south under international and local pressure. However, the military establishment admits that these goals are not easily attainable given the current data, making field movements merely local tactical shifts that do not rise to the level of decisive action.
Serious concerns arise about how the army will act if an international political agreement is reached, and whether it will be forced to withdraw from the territories it recently occupied. The Northern Command has prepared contingency plans to establish fixed positions adopting the 'Gaza model' in South Lebanon, but the chances of implementing these plans remain vague given the American restrictions imposed on air operations and broad strategic movements.
The realistic ability to influence the separation between the Iranian and Lebanese arenas is limited, and withdrawal simply means the return of the threat to the borders.
شارك برأيك
The 'Shaqif Castle' Dilemma: Israeli Fears of Tactical Gains Fading Without a Political Agreement