Professor Saleh Abdel Jawad: Israel has actually expanded the confrontation, and if it does not obtain its demands or some of them, we will be facing a quantitative and qualitative escalation.

Dr. Kholoud Al-Obeidi: It is not in Israel’s interest to embark on a new adventure in which it might lose the gains it achieved after eliminating Hezbollah leaders

Dr. Muhammad Najib Bou Taleb: It is unlikely that Israel will resort to a ground war scenario, especially in light of its air superiority and the bitterness of its experience in southern Lebanon.

Hani Al-Jamal: The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah may be a prelude to a large-scale military operation that begins with the announcement of a limited Israeli ground attack

Osama Al-Sharif: Israel seeks to destroy the environment that supports the resistance and ignite sectarian strife that may push Lebanon towards a second civil war

Muhand Oglu: Escalation is likely to increase and Iran does not seek to engage in a direct confrontation with Israel, but rather achieve its goals through its arms

Dr. Abdullah Nehme: Hezbollah was left alone to face its fate, and what is happening is part of the ongoing arrangements between Iran and America regarding the nuclear agreement

In light of the escalation of military attacks launched by the Israeli army on Lebanon, after a series of violent bombings and shelling operations targeting Hezbollah leaders and cadres, starting with the bombing of pagers and then wireless communication devices, and the resulting assassination of a number of the party’s first-rank military leaders, and the subsequent assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and many of the party’s leaders, a number of questions arise about future scenarios, especially the possibility that Israel will carry out a large-scale ground military operation in southern Lebanon, how Hezbollah will respond, what the next confrontation will look like, and whether Iran will intervene or has it left Hezbollah to face its fate alone.

In this context, analysts and academics who spoke to “I” believe that Israel has already expanded the confrontation with Hezbollah, and that it may indeed resort to a ground military operation. Some of them expected it to be limited, while others believed that all options are open to Israel, which is supported by the US and the West, and is intoxicated by the “victory” it achieved on the Lebanese front, especially since it seems that Iran prefers to preserve its strategic interests and its nuclear program rather than enter into a direct confrontation with Israel.

Any ground military operation is an escalation of the confrontation.

Historian and political science professor, Professor Saleh Abdel Jawad, believes that any ground military operation is an escalation of the confrontation.

“We must not forget that Israel has actually expanded the confrontation for several weeks through a series of massive offensive operations (blowing up pagers and wireless devices, assassinating the leaders of the Radwan Brigade, and ending with the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and his comrades at the party’s headquarters in the southern suburb), while the party wanted from the beginning just a disciplined confrontation that would pressure Israel to ease the pressure on our people in the Gaza Strip who are being subjected to an unprecedented war of extermination, and to push the Israelis to accept a ceasefire. We are therefore facing a real Israeli escalation,” he told .

Abdul Jawad wondered: Will there be a greater escalation of the confrontation? He explained that "we must here recall the saying of the German military strategic thinker Clausewitz, 'War is a continuation of politics', meaning when diplomatic means fail, you resort to war and violence."

He pointed out that "the Israelis wanted Hezbollah to sever its ties between the Gaza front and the southern Lebanon front and return the displaced settlers and towns of the north, and when Nasrallah strongly rejected the matter in his last speech, the button was pressed."

“The Israelis prefer to achieve these goals through diplomatic means if possible, because they know that any confrontation is costly economically and humanly, not to mention the deterioration of Israel’s reputation due to the brutal killing of civilians. In light of the blows that the party has received and that have certainly weakened it, the Israelis have raised the ceiling of their demands, including the absence of a Hezbollah military presence south of the Litani, and even the disarmament of the party,” he said, expressing his belief that they are betting on the position of the Lebanese government and international pressure, especially American, to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough.

He said: "If the Israelis do not obtain these demands or some of them, I am certain that we will be facing a new, additional, quantitative and qualitative escalation."

As for launching a ground operation, Professor Abdul Jawad explained: “The Israelis are afraid of that, especially since the air strikes achieved part of their goals, and they have not yet forgotten the experience of their ground invasion in 2006. They know that Hezbollah is still a major force that is to be reckoned with, despite the blows it has received in the area of control and command. Therefore, if a ground operation is launched, it will be relatively limited (it will not be similar to the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which ultimately led Israel to disaster).”

Regarding Iran, Abdul Jawad said: “We must know that Iran is serious in its support for the people of Palestine and Lebanon, but Iran has a calm and patient long-term strategy, and does not want to get involved in uncalculated or undetermined confrontations that would thwart this strategy.”

He added: The Iranians were not aware of the October 7 attack, but my information indicates that they were embarrassed by it, fearing what is happening now and the risks of getting involved in a major regional war that they know the United States will be a party to in the absence of reliable international allies.

Abdul Jawad stated that Iran did not practically respond to the assassination of Qassem Soleimani and its nuclear scientists, so the Iranian position is understandable and I believe it is wise.

"This does not mean that Iran will not be harmed in terms of its status and reputation, and even its relationship with Hezbollah, but this is something else," he said.

Multiple fronts and their unity to relieve pressure on Gaza

Dr. Kholoud Al-Obaidi, a political science and international law specialist from Iraq, told “I” that “since the Al-Aqsa flood, the resistance has relied on more than one front against Israeli attacks, until their number reached eight fronts, and that the unity of the fronts aimed to reduce the pressure on the Gaza Strip and support the Palestinian resistance.”

She pointed out that "Lebanon was one of the important fronts, especially since it occupied the Israeli army and led to the displacement of large numbers of settlers in northern Palestine and the closure of schools. Therefore, Netanyahu headed to carry out operations that can only be described as immoral to liquidate the northern Palestine front."

“After the assassination of Hezbollah leaders and the party’s Secretary-General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and the destruction of its weapons depots, the invasion of Lebanon has become unjustified. The Israeli army needs a new mobilization. It is unimaginable that the five divisions in Gaza are ready for war after the Gaza front has calmed down. The United States of America does not want to expand the war either. The Israeli government, including the prime minister and the army, is not in their interest to embark on a new adventure in which they might lose the gains achieved by the operation to eliminate Hezbollah leaders, especially since the balance of power appears in Israel’s favor at the present time,” she said.

Iraq is the critical front...and more than one Iranian direction

Al-Obaidi continued: "Then the management of the wars waged by Israel depends on what is called the fifth generation of weapons that rely on high technology, while the occupation of Lebanon requires conventional forces. In addition, achieving victory in a mountainous topography like Lebanon is difficult for the Israeli army." Therefore, Al-Obaidi expected the Lebanese front to calm down in the coming period, and said: "Iraq represents the critical front at the present time. Israel is planning to strike dear Iraq. I warn against this with all sorrow, as the Iraqis cannot bear to see their country targeted and struck by missiles in a new war."

She believed that "Iran has more than one trend in the government. The conservative trend represented by Khamenei is contrasted by the liberal trend that calls for rapprochement with the United States of America, which is represented by President Pezeshkian."

She pointed out that "at the beginning of the war, Iranian officials declared that they would not interfere, and this is a good position that expresses the independence of the resistance's decision, and not an abandonment of it. During the negotiations period, Iran announced its support for the resistance to strengthen its negotiating position."

She stressed that "the Iranian president is now seeking in the United States to obtain gains or spoils through diplomatic means, and countries behave differently from resistance movements, so Iran is acting as a state that has duties and responsibilities that it bears under international law, and it does not need to put itself in a position where it is condemned and sanctions are tightened on it," noting that "Iran uses means of distributing roles in foreign policy, and it has influence, and some consider it a dependency on the armed wings present in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq."

Dr. Al-Obaidi concluded by saying: “In fact, Iran is referred to as the reason for what happened to Hezbollah. What happened was a clear betrayal, but I believe that the issue should not concern us. Didn’t we call on Iran to stay away from the region, so why do we blame it when it abandons Hezbollah? The question in my opinion is: Why don’t we take the initiative to contain Hezbollah and the Arab arms of the resistance? Iran does not spend a lot of money on arms, and many Arab parties can embrace the arms of the Arab resistance.”

Ground invasion scenario ruled out

For his part, the writer and analyst in political sociology, Dr. Muhammad Najib Bou Taleb from Tunisia, told “Y”: “From previous experiences and due to the balance of power and the nature of these powers, it seems unlikely that the Israeli army will enter southern Lebanon, especially in light of its superiority in reconnaissance and bombing aircraft.”

He pointed out that from a tactical standpoint, there is also Israeli superiority due to American and Western support. Also, "the estimates of the ground war, if it occurs, the indicators lean in favor of Hezbollah and the national, Islamic and Palestinian resistance in Lebanon, and Israel has bitter memories in southern Lebanon."

Bou Taleb stressed that "Iran understood that its intervention in the war, despite the painful blows it received in Tehran and in the locations of its allies, would only be a lure to destroy it with known American support. We see in this position a great deal of shrewdness, as it will be satisfied with supporting its allies in the region."

From a strategic perspective, Bou Taleb pointed out that “Israel’s being dragged into waging war on Gaza and Lebanon in a barbaric manner is not in its favor at all because for the first time it has lost several cards, the most important of which are: the state of peace and the democratic state in the region, the fall of the Zionist ideology and the practical threat to the strongholds of the state that it built and claimed for decades to be immune, the increase in economic losses (tourism, industry and trade) and social losses (counter-migration externally and internal migration and displacement from the south and from the north to the center), and its loss of a large part of global public opinion, including in the Western world.”

Bou Taleb pointed to the demographic problem in Israel, as it is experiencing a large deficit in the number of recruits, which has led it to resort to Jewish extremists and religious people with all the temptations of mercenaries and agents.

Israel may expand military operations in Lebanon

Egyptian political analyst Hani al-Gamal predicted that the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, might be a prelude to a large-scale military operation led by Israel against Hezbollah, noting that this operation might begin with an Israeli announcement of a limited ground attack, but would soon expand to include wider areas of Lebanese territory.

Al-Jamal pointed out in an interview with “I” that “Hezbollah’s supply chains, which come from the north, represent a strategic threat to Israel, which will push it to move its military operations from the south to the east, and Israel may target strategic sites such as Rafik Hariri Airport or Beirut Port.”

The Egyptian analyst considered that the assassination may be part of an Israeli plan to expand control over the region and establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, which may extend beyond the Litani River, in parallel with the absence of official Lebanese deterrence in light of the presidential vacuum that the country is experiencing.

Analyst Al-Jamal stressed that the United States supports these Israeli steps, citing statements indicating that the assassination of Nasrallah represents a blow to one of the "most important terrorist elements" in the region.

He pointed to the possibility of expanding Israeli operations to include Syria with the aim of eliminating Hezbollah elements and Iranian forces present there.

Regarding Iran, Al-Jamal believes that Iran may prefer to preserve its strategic interests and nuclear program rather than enter into a direct confrontation with Israel, especially after the assassination of prominent figures such as Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil without any major response.

Egyptian analyst Al-Gamal stressed that Israel seeks to change the political geography of the Middle East in line with the American vision of “creative chaos,” which could lead to the elimination of the dream of establishing an independent Palestinian state and the strengthening of the idea of “Greater Israel.”

The psychological war continues

Jordanian political analyst Osama Al-Sharif believes that the Israeli intelligence role played a decisive role in directing painful blows to Hezbollah, whether in the field or organizationally, which changed the deterrence equation that had been in place since the 2006 war, while this intelligence success enabled Israel to achieve important gains at the expense of the axis of resistance without incurring major losses.

He pointed out that the psychological war waged by Israel against the axis of resistance will continue, and its goal is to sow doubt and despair in its ranks, in addition to raising phobia of Israel's ability to carry out similar breaches inside Iran.

He expressed his belief that Tehran realizes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to lure it into a military response and escalate the situation, but Iran's current strategy focuses on absorbing what happened in Lebanon and avoiding repeating it on its territory.

Al-Sharif added to "Y": Israel's current goal is not limited to achieving military victories, but extends to destroying the environment that supports the Islamic resistance in Lebanon.

According to Al-Sharif, Israel seeks to ignite sectarian strife that could push Lebanon towards a second civil war, which could end with the division of the country on a sectarian basis and the end of the Lebanese state as we know it.

Al-Sharif warned the Lebanese political forces of this real danger threatening the country, pointing out that Israel does not need a broad ground intervention at the present time, because its goals are achieved through other means, including intelligence and psychological warfare.

Israel seeks to achieve two main goals

In turn, Turkish political analyst Muhannad Hafizoglu told the newspaper "I": The escalation in the region is likely to increase, in light of the efforts of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government to achieve two main goals. The first goal is to extend his political life, as Netanyahu seeks to confirm his ability to lead Israel, after he claimed that assassinating about 20 Hezbollah leaders in two weeks is impossible without him, and thus strengthens his position inside Israel by securing Israel, including protecting hostages and residents of the north.

The second goal is to intensify field pressure on the “axis of resistance” by expanding Israeli military movements.

Oglu explained that Iran does not seek to engage in a direct confrontation with Israel, but rather works to achieve its goals in the region through its agents from the Arab movements and groups that implement its nationalist agenda.

Despite repeated Iranian statements of support for Hezbollah, Oglu believes that this support remains limited to statements only, and that Iran wants to avoid getting directly involved in this crisis.

He pointed out that the change in Iranian leadership, including the replacement of the Iranian president and foreign minister, reflects Tehran's desire to avoid escalation with Israel, noting that the Iranian president's statements about opening up to the United States indicate that Iran prefers to focus on its interests, most notably the nuclear file, rather than getting involved in a dangerous confrontation with Israel.

Oglu stressed that the Israeli field intervention in Lebanon aims to send a message to Hezbollah that Israel is capable of a limited and quick ground incursion to demonstrate its strength, but it does not want to engage in a large-scale ground operation. However, if Hezbollah is able to achieve goals against Israel during this incursion, southern Lebanon could witness a dangerous escalation, with civilians paying the price as usual.

Lifting the Iranian cover from Hezbollah

Lebanese political analyst Dr. Abdullah Nehme said in a statement to “I”: “We all know that the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is an Israeli intelligence operation that was planned a long time ago, and the Israeli occupation army has acknowledged this. The timing of the assassination is not a coincidence, and it is clear that Hezbollah and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah were left alone to face their fate, which is what the Lebanese felt in Sayyed Nasrallah’s last speech before his assassination, especially after the Iranian statements at the United Nations that showed rapprochement with the Americans.”

"There is a clear disagreement between Iran and Hezbollah, as Iran does not want war with Israel, while Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is waging this war. Netanyahu is also known for being difficult to reach an understanding with, and the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah came after the Iranian cover was lifted from him, and it is part of the ongoing arrangements between Iran and America regarding the nuclear agreement," Nehme added.

He stressed that "the Lebanese people today stand united in their solidarity with the resistance and Hezbollah, and we Lebanese are all against Israel, which continues to destroy and kill the Lebanese, and our conflict with it began before the existence of Hezbollah."

Israel will not stop attacking us since 1948, and this conflict will not end.

It is true that Hezbollah is suffering after a series of successive blows, and the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was an earthquake for it, but the determination of Hezbollah members and the Lebanese people to resist Israel remains strong.

Nehme concluded by saying: “We are never used to bowing before this criminal entity. Our war with Israel is long, and we must stand together and unite to protect ourselves and our country. May God protect Lebanon and the Lebanese people. It is certain that Israel will carry out a partial ground invasion in the south, especially since it imposed a land, sea and air blockade on Lebanon yesterday.”