Dr. Tamara Haddad: Hezbollah refuses that Israel intervene or be able to influence Lebanese sovereignty or southern Lebanon

Samer Anabtawi: The Lebanese resistance proved its strength and dealt strategically with the calm proposals and turned the crisis towards Israel

Dr. Ashraf Badr: A large gap between what Israel aspires to and what Hezbollah can accept makes the continuation of the confrontation a likely option

Suleiman Basharat: Hezbollah seeks to establish a new equation in the conflict with Israel based on firepower as a strategic tool

Nizar Nazzal: The recent escalation may be an indication that Hezbollah has received a green light from Iran to intensify and expand its strikes

Imad Moussa: Hezbollah wanted, through its escalation, to redraw the equation of proportionality in the conflict and respond to attempts to “negotiate with fire.”

The military escalation on the northern front between Hezbollah and Israel raises questions about the possibility of reaching a settlement or continuing the open confrontation, especially after Hezbollah escalated significantly over the past two days by targeting Israeli targets.

In separate interviews with “I,” writers, political analysts and specialists believe that Hezbollah seeks to prove its military and political capabilities by escalating its operations and intensifying the launch of missiles and drones, while Israel faces increasing challenges in containing the repercussions of these attacks on the security and economic levels.

The book and analysts explain that Hezbollah aims through escalation to strengthen its negotiating position, stressing its rejection of any Israeli interference in Lebanese sovereignty, and its commitment to imposing its rules, most notably implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701 without conditions or amendments that might restrict Lebanon. In contrast, it seems that Israel is seeking to prolong the war to impose a new reality that weakens the party and gives it more freedom to intervene in Lebanon.

They point out that despite international efforts to calm the situation, the current situation reflects a large gap between the goals of the two parties, which increases the chances of regional escalation.

Multiple dimensions and objectives of Hezbollah's escalation

Writer and political researcher on regional affairs, Dr. Tamara Haddad, confirms that Hezbollah’s escalation in firing rockets towards Israel has multiple dimensions and goals, which go beyond the military aspect to reach political and strategic demands to meet its conditions related to Lebanese sovereignty and the implementation of international resolutions.

Haddad explains that the primary goal of the escalation is to pressure the Lebanese to fulfill demands related to a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from the areas in which they are present in southern Lebanon. The party also seeks to force Israel to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 1701 without any new amendments or annexes that could restrict Lebanese sovereignty or give Israel the freedom to intervene in security and military matters inside Lebanon.

Haddad points out that Hezbollah refuses that Israel be able to influence Lebanese sovereignty or interfere in any future threats from southern Lebanon, especially with regard to preventing the passage of weapons through Syria. The party also insists on strengthening the presence of the Lebanese army after implementing Resolution 1701, while the tasks of the UNIFIL forces continue to be fully coordinated with the Lebanese army and in accordance with internal Lebanese understandings.

Haddad touched upon the fact that Hezbollah relies on negotiating strategies that depend on military escalation, as it possesses two powerful pressure cards: the first is the “Radwan” force, which consists of about 40,000 fighters, and the second is the huge missile arsenal that has not been fully used yet.

The current escalation may not lead to a settlement soon.

Regarding the situation on the ground, Haddad confirms that the current escalation may not lead to a settlement soon, given that Israel seeks to prolong the war to impose a fait accompli that weakens Hezbollah. Israel also wants to obtain American guarantees that allow it the freedom to penetrate Lebanese airspace and intervene in the event of future security threats.

However, Haddad believes that the continuation of the escalation may lead to an increase in the intensity of the confrontations, especially if it affects the Lebanese state’s infrastructure, which may lead Lebanon to a state of comprehensive economic and security collapse.

Haddad points out that civil peace in Lebanon is still relatively stable, despite the increasing pressures, but the continuation and escalation of the war may lead to the social, economic and security depletion of Lebanon.

Haddad points out that the Israeli interior is facing a state of turmoil as a result of the growing concern over the situation of two million people in shelters, and the worsening economic and social pressures, while feelings of fear and frustration are increasing among Israelis, whether among civilians or soldiers.

Clear qualitative transformations that confused the Israeli security system

Writer and political analyst Samer Anabtawi confirms that the recent escalation led by the Lebanese Hezbollah was characterized by clear qualitative transformations, as the party used large and unprecedented quantities of missiles and drones, and expanded the scope of its operations in a remarkable way, which greatly confused the Israeli security system.

Anbatawi explains that these moves reflect a new strategy of the Lebanese resistance, which wanted through this escalation to convey several messages and achieve a set of goals.

Anbatawi points out that Israel has been seeking for some time to exert pressure on Hezbollah and the Lebanese state, with the aim of imposing its conditions to reach a negotiated agreement under military pressure. In return, the Lebanese resistance responded through a clear escalation to send a message that it will not allow the occupying state to impose its agenda.

Anbatawi explains that Hezbollah wanted to prove through its recent operations that its capabilities have not declined as Israeli propaganda claims, but rather that it possesses more capabilities in confronting the occupation. The party also aims to achieve the Beirut versus Tel Aviv equation after the violent Israeli targeting of the southern suburb of Beirut.

Anbatawi stresses that Hezbollah wants to send a clear message, which is that even if it decides to enter into any truce, it will do so from a position of strength and ability to protect Lebanon and its people from any threats or pressures.

"Finger-biting operation" between the two parties

Anbatawi believes that what is currently happening represents a "finger-biting process" between the two parties, as each tries to gain more cards until the last moment.

Anbatawi believes that the escalation led by Hezbollah may be a prelude to imposing the resistance's conditions before any possible calm.

But on the other hand, Anabtawi points out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may exploit this escalation to disrupt the calm efforts, as he did previously in the Gaza Strip, with the aim of placing the responsibility on the resistance and obstructing any agreement.

Anbatawi warns that the continuation of the escalation may push matters towards a comprehensive confrontation at the regional level, pointing out that the situation is still open to all scenarios, especially with the continued tension in Gaza and the West Bank, and Iran’s failure to respond so far to the threats it has been subjected to.

Anbatawi points out that Netanyahu does not want to calm the situation, as he believes that this could harm his political future and the project of his right-wing government, which seeks to resolve the conflict with the Palestinian people and settle its scores with the axis of resistance in the region.

Anbatawi explains that Hezbollah and the Lebanese resistance showed strategic intelligence in dealing with the calm file, and did not reject the proposals related to that, as they avoided transferring the conflict to the Lebanese interior and focused their operations on the Israeli interior.

Anbatawi confirms that the Lebanese resistance did not reject any calm proposals, but linked its escalation to Israeli steps, and this escalation caused deep confusion inside Israel, as the party’s operations targeted the Israeli depth in an effective manner, which led to increased pressure on the Israeli government to reach an agreement with Lebanon, and perhaps with Gaza as well.

Anbatawi points out that the Israeli home front is suffering from divisions and disturbances as a result of this war, which constitutes an additional pressure factor on the occupation government, which finds itself facing limited options in confronting the complexities of the regional and internal conflict.

Hezbollah's escalation carries strategic messages

The writer, political analyst and specialist in Israeli affairs, Dr. Ashraf Badr, believes that the current escalation by Hezbollah carries strategic messages aimed at confirming to Israel that the party still maintains its military power and is able to influence the field. Hezbollah also seeks, through intensifying its military operations, to prove that its missile arsenal is still in good condition, and that it has the ability to impose its conditions if matters move towards serious negotiations.

Despite press leaks talking about the imminent conclusion of an agreement between Hezbollah and Israel, Badr believes that there is a large gap between what Israel aspires to and what Hezbollah can accept as a minimum. This gap makes the continuation of the confrontation a likely option, as Hezbollah has not been defeated, and Israel has not achieved a clear victory, which means that the next stage may witness further escalation.

Badr stresses that the unwillingness of either party to make concessions increases the possibility of an escalation of the confrontation instead of moving towards a settlement. The next stage may witness either a long-term war of attrition, or a more severe escalation from both sides.

Badr believes that the ongoing escalation may cast a heavy shadow over the Lebanese interior, as it is expected to lead to an increase in the intensity of political differences and polarization within Lebanese society. These tensions may result from the pressures imposed by the military escalation on the Lebanese economy, in addition to the differences between the various political forces regarding the management of the crisis.

Deepening internal divisions in Israel

On the Israeli side, Badr explains that the ongoing escalation deepens internal divisions between those who support the continuation of the war, who are mostly from the extreme right-wing camp, and those who demand the imposition of a settlement, who are the groups that suffer great losses as a result of the continuation of the war on the economic, social and political levels.

Badr stresses that the current situation reflects the complexity of the regional scene, as there does not seem to be a clear horizon for ending the escalation. On the other hand, any increase in the intensity of military operations may lead to the expansion of the scope of the confrontation to include more dangerous regional dimensions.

Message to Israel: Continuing the war has no horizon or future

Writer and political analyst Suleiman Basharat believes that Hezbollah seeks to establish a new equation in the conflict with Israel, based on firepower as a strategic tool.

This equation, as Basharat points out, aims to send a clear message to Israel that the continuation of the war has no horizon or future, and puts the occupation in a complex and costly position, forcing it to rethink its political and military options.

Basharat believes that the current war is at a critical juncture; either a political agreement will be reached that stops the escalation and establishes a new phase of relations based on mutual deterrence, or things will head towards greater escalation with higher ceilings than the situation was in the first weeks of the war.

According to Basharat, Hezbollah believes that its continuation of the previous escalation equations will only lead to turning Lebanon into an experience similar to what the Gaza Strip is suffering from, where the Israeli occupation is the only one imposing its conditions.

Basharat points out that Hezbollah is trying to balance its political position and its military arena, but at the same time it is increasing the pace of targeting and the intensity of fire as a means of strengthening its negotiating position.

Escalation in this way, as Basharat explains, constitutes a double message: on the one hand, it is to pressure the Israeli occupation to accept a political solution, and on the other hand, it is to emphasize that the resistance will not stand idly by in the face of the occupation’s attempts to change the rules of engagement.

However, Basharat explains that the escalation could open the door to complex possibilities. While Hezbollah seeks an agreement that establishes Lebanese sovereignty and adopts Resolution 1701 as a basic reference, Israel may see any agreement as an opportunity to separate the fronts, which could isolate Gaza from Lebanese support and allow the occupation to continue its aggression in the Strip without regional interventions. However, this raises questions about whether Hezbollah will accept this or not.

Basharat believes that Hezbollah’s position is complicated for several reasons. On the one hand, it cannot depart from the Lebanese consensus, as any violation of that may open the door to internal disputes that would further complicate the Lebanese scene. On the other hand, the party’s steps are linked to Iranian political calculations, especially in light of recent statements that seem to be leaning towards accepting a political proposal that may not guarantee a halt to the war in Gaza, but contributes to calming the Lebanese front.

Basharat points out that the next few days will reveal the features of the next stage, as they will show the directions that the parties will take, whether towards calm or escalation, and how these movements can turn into political or military outcomes.

Possible scenarios if the escalation continues

Basharat discusses the possible scenarios if the escalation continues, as the first scenario is to go beyond the current political stage, which may lead to an escalation much higher than the current level.

In this scenario, Basharat believes that Israel will move towards targeting the Lebanese infrastructure, including vital facilities such as airports, ports and government institutions. This escalation will put Hezbollah before the choice of facing major challenges, as it may be forced to expand the scope of targeting inside Israel to include vital and populated areas, which may lead to things getting out of control and the region entering a state of total destruction.

Basharat addresses the second scenario, which is a limited escalation in the context of attrition with specific brakes on the conflict, without reaching a comprehensive confrontation. However, this option may not be beneficial for both parties, because it may change the existing balance of power without achieving real gains.

The third scenario, which is the most dangerous, according to Basharat, is that the escalation will continue for a long time, which will plunge Lebanon and Israel into a state of comprehensive destruction.

In this context, Basharat points to the possibility of the confrontation expanding to include other arenas outside Lebanon, such as Syria, Yemen and Iraq, and Hezbollah may resort to intensive and comprehensive targeting inside Israel, which complicates the regional scene and increases the possibility of direct intervention by international parties.

Basharat points out that Israel may exploit any potential agreement with Lebanon to strengthen its position in Gaza, which may put Hezbollah before a difficult test regarding its relationship with other fronts of the Palestinian resistance.

On the Israeli side, Basharat believes that there is a state of discontent among the popular and political circles as a result of the continuation of the war. This discontent is evident in the protests of the heads of local councils in the north, and the increasing pressure on Netanyahu’s government to accept a political solution. However, Israel may refuse to make major concessions, which complicates the chances of reaching an agreement.

As for the Lebanese interior, Basharat believes that the complexities of the social and sectarian fabric add an additional dimension to the crisis, as Hezbollah faces major challenges in maintaining internal unity, especially in light of the economic and political pressures that Lebanon is suffering from.

Israel will not agree to a ceasefire unless under military pressure

Nizar Nazzal, a researcher specializing in Israeli affairs and conflict issues, believes that Hezbollah has become convinced that Israel is continuing its current war and will not agree to a ceasefire except under intense military pressure. Based on this, the party has resorted to intensifying its attacks to achieve a number of strategic goals, most notably putting pressure on Israel by targeting new areas and central cities, which aims to push Israel to accept an agreement that reflects the balance of power between the two parties.

According to Nazzal, Hezbollah seeks for any potential agreement between the two parties to be based on the principle of parity, not defeat, as the party wants to conclude an agreement with terms that reflect its image as a victorious party capable of imposing its dictates, not as a defeated party. From the party’s point of view, military escalation has become a strategic necessity to prevent Israel from exploiting its field superiority to expand its combat operations and inflict more destruction and killing, in light of the Israeli street’s adaptation to the usual missile attacks launched by Hezbollah.

Nazzal points out that the coming days, especially until the end of the week, will be decisive in light of the threats of the American mediator Amos Hochstein to withdraw from his efforts to mediate between the two parties.

Nazzal points out that the recent escalation may be an indication that Hezbollah has received a green light from Iran to intensify its strikes and expand the scope of its targeting to include new areas that have not been subjected to its attacks in the past.

Nazzal believes that Hezbollah believes that escalation is the way to impose a ceasefire on its own terms, noting that this strategy may lead to further escalation rather than achieving a truce.

Israel is moving towards targeting the Lebanese state in general

But Israel, according to Nazzal's estimates, is taking clear steps towards targeting the Lebanese state in general, and not just Hezbollah sites or the southern suburb of Beirut.

Nazzal points to the mutual escalation between the two parties, as Hezbollah threatened to target Tel Aviv if the Lebanese capital Beirut was subjected to direct Israeli attacks. Tel Aviv was indeed targeted twice recently, which reflects the party’s readiness to expand the scope of the confrontation.

Nazzal believes that the region is heading towards a completely different phase if Hezbollah continues at the same pace of escalation that it has witnessed in recent days.

However, Nazzal does not believe that this escalation will lead to an agreement between the two parties, as Israel seeks to impose its own conditions on any potential agreement, while Hezbollah is trying to impose its conditions that reflect the balance of power.

Nazzal confirms that Israel is trying to appear victorious in any future agreement, while Hezbollah is trying to confirm that it is a strong rival to it.

Nazzal believes that Israel's current behavior reflects its desire to achieve a calm that shows Hezbollah as a defeated party, something that the party's leadership strongly rejects.

On the domestic front, Nazzal points to the complexities facing Lebanon as a result of its diverse and contradictory social fabric, where political and sectarian tensions further complicate the current situation, and these complexities make it difficult to manage military escalation without major repercussions on the Lebanese interior, which is suffering from worsening economic and social crises.

In Israel, Nazzal points to a state of discontent within Israeli society, especially among the mayors of local municipalities in Haifa and Acre, who have expressed their dissatisfaction with the continuation of the war.

Nazzal points out that the Israeli street has come to realize that a military solution with Hezbollah is not possible, which has prompted some to pressure the Israeli government to reach an agreement. However, the Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, is still maneuvering to avoid making major concessions.

Nazzal believes that the American position reflects a difference in dealing with the escalation in Lebanon compared to Gaza and the West Bank, and while the United States is pressing for a ceasefire in Lebanon, it seems less concerned with ending the escalation in Gaza and the West Bank.

Hezbollah has drawn a clear equation in the rules of engagement

Writer and political analyst Imad Moussa believes that since the beginning of its support for Gaza, the Lebanese Hezbollah has drawn up a clear equation in the rules of engagement, based on three main axes: directing weapons at the Israeli army, its headquarters, bases and personnel, avoiding targeting civilians directly as much as possible, and adhering to its combat doctrine based on religion and the principles of international humanitarian law.

According to Musa, these rules reflected a balanced strategy of the Lebanese resistance, which was keen to target military installations such as eavesdropping towers and information gathering centers, while sparing civilians the horrors of war.

Moussa believes that Hezbollah's intensification of rocket fire, especially heavy ones, towards Tel Aviv, carries a clear strategic significance, and is a response to Benjamin Netanyahu's statement that negotiations are conducted with fire.

Moussa asserts that through this escalation, the party wanted to redraw the equation of proportionality in the conflict, so that it would be Tel Aviv versus Beirut, in reference to the party’s ability to balance military deterrence.

Netanyahu is obsessed with the idea of genocide and control

Mousa points out that Benjamin Netanyahu has become obsessed with the idea of annihilation and control, and he seeks to achieve dual goals by prolonging the war.

The first goal, according to Musa, is to achieve military gains that will enable him to impose his conditions on the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance.

The second goal, Musa points out, is to boost the chances of US President-elect Donald Trump after returning to the White House, as Netanyahu is counting on the Trump administration to support his plans in the region, including pressuring the International Criminal Court to reverse its decisions targeting his arrest personally and his former war minister, Yoav Galant.

Mousa points out that Netanyahu is trying to exploit the war to send a message to the Americans that the influence of the "Zionist spiral" and the forces supporting it is what imposes the equations, noting that the relationship between Israel and the American military-industrial complex represents an alliance that exceeds the importance of NATO in some aspects.

He stresses that Netanyahu seeks to prolong the war to achieve his strategic goals, especially in light of his attempts to strike a blow to international institutions such as the International Criminal Court.

These attempts, according to Musa, come within a broader context of settling scores with the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance, and ensuring Israeli control over the region, from Gaza to Lebanon, passing through Iraq and Yemen.