The gap of calculations between Israel and Hezbollah regarding the future of the war in the region is widening dangerously. Hezbollah links the cessation of fighting in southern Lebanon to reaching a ceasefire in Gaza, as an expression of the “unity of arenas” approach adopted by the Iranian axis and its militias. On the other hand, the Israeli position developed towards announcing the disengagement between Lebanon and Gaza, meaning that the calm in Gaza will not translate into an immediate calm in Lebanon. This difference sheds light on the broader and difficult test to which the “unity of arenas” theory has been exposed, since the outbreak of the conflict in Gaza following the Hamas attack on the morning of October 7, 2023. Despite the dazzling populist claims contained in this theory, In reality, it faces gigantic obstacles, starting with the fact that Iran’s priority is the geopolitical ambitions of the regime, not Palestine itself as a target, and passing through the complexities of the national interests of the people of the “squares” who are subject to destruction and sabotage, and reaching the stark disparity in power between the warring parties.
In contrast to the aforementioned Iranian logic, Israel deals with these arenas with the logic of independent calculations that stem from the specificities of each arena and an assessment of its risks and impact on Israeli security. Accordingly, Israel is investing in the events of the field to dismantle the theory of “unity of arenas” by revealing the practical challenges that Iran faces in implementing this strategy. Moreover, Israel aims to portray Tehran’s dealings with Hamas and the Palestinians as a utilitarian, exploitative approach, and to show the gap between its high rhetoric in support of the Palestinians and the low level of its actual and practical commitment to their cause in times of decisive wars, as is the case now.
Israel is well aware of Iran’s strategic calculations in its dealings with Hezbollah as its strategic shield and the “golden bullet” in its arsenal if Israel decides to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel understands that preserving Hezbollah for Iran, as its first line of defense, is non-negotiable, but it wants everyone to realize that as well. We now know, for example, that the military commander of Hamas in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, according to movement documents confiscated by the Israelis, was certain that Iran and its militias would come to the aid of Gaza and transform the fronts it controls into a unified front, without this actually being achieved. As for the speeches of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah about the upcoming battles of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, today they play against their author, who has decided to be absent from platforms, except rarely, after his appearances were almost weekly at one point.
It is difficult for this to go unnoticed by the relations of the components of the Iranian axis with each other, as it becomes clear that “the unity of the arenas” is merely a cover for an Iranian strategy that targets Iranian goals first and foremost, even at the expense of the Palestinians and Lebanese. If Gaza has practically been left to its fate, then Lebanon must get used to the fact that the strikes, attacks, assassinations and bombings it is experiencing today are its new way of life, which will continue regardless of developments in the situation in Gaza. Israel, which is aware of the importance of Hezbollah in Iran’s broader strategic rules of the game, seeks to proactively remove the party from the equation, in the event that it is forced in the future to confront Iran directly, if the latter obtains nuclear capabilities, or comes closer and closer to that, in a manner It significantly changes the regional security landscape. From this perspective, neutralizing Hezbollah weakens Iran’s retaliatory capabilities and resets the strategic balance in favor of Israel. The dynamics unfolding in Lebanon, then, are not merely episodic confrontations, but rather a reflection of new Israeli rules of engagement, focused on targeting and destroying Hezbollah’s operational infrastructure, and systematically weakening its military capabilities, ensuring that its ability to respond effectively is weakened if the conflict expands. . Now, the theoretical appeal of a deal between Hezbollah and Israel is quickly dissipating, in light of the practical realities on the ground. There is no solution within political science to the fundamental conflict between Hezbollah’s ideological commitment to destroying Israel and any form of peaceful coexistence with it. Here it must be noted that Iran’s exploitative approach to the Palestinian issue does not contradict its actual commitment to destroy Israel, but rather they are two complementary elements to its broader geostrategic ambitions in the Middle East. By claiming to defend Palestinian rights and support anti-Israel factions, Iran is making itself a central player in the Islamic world.
Its position on the destruction of Israel serves ideological purposes related to the safety and sustainability of the revolutionary regime. This dual approach enables Iran to project power, secure its geopolitical interests, and enhance its legitimacy domestically and among its regional allies. In fact, for Iran and Hezbollah, under the current circumstances, reaching an agreement is not about achieving lasting peace as much as it is an appropriate moment for tactical positioning. This convergence between Hezbollah’s fixed ideology, supported by Iran, and Israel’s post-October 7 existential obsession paves the way for inevitable wars on the horizon.
ظهرت في الأصل على aawsat.com