“Israel” and the US have experienced two wars against the Resistance in Lebanon - the first of which was a direct confrontation in July 2006. According to a study by Anthony Cordesman published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, the 2006 war had 3 main goals:

The first was the total destruction of Hezbollah’s missile capabilities, in particular, its medium and long-range arsenal, in addition to extinguishing the organization’s military infrastructure in general. The second was restoring “Israel’s” reputation in the region, especially after their humiliating defeat and retreat from the South of Lebanon in 2000. The third goal is to weaken the Lebanese government, rendering the country engrossed in a waning political environment, engulfing a feeble resistance. Observing these three goals, alongside the glaring aftermaths and conditions of the war on Syria over the past ten tears, one could say that none of these goals have come close to completion.  

In fact, Hezbollah’s military arsenal has developed, “Israel’s” image has exponentially deteriorated, despite the fact that the political situation in Lebanon has been in continuous turmoil and decline.

After the Israeli failure on the battlefield, the focus was shifted to a new type of war (The Second War): It hinges on waging a “War of Ideas” - as publicized by the RAND Corporation - coupled with a “Media War”, by dedicating immense budgets to paint the Resistance and Iranian foreign policy in a sectarian light, a smearing strategy repeatedly advocated by Carnegie Endowment. 

Related News

USA Targeting Hezbollah; The Government Deadlock and People’s Struggle

The Second War did not achieve the strategic goals the US and “Israel” were vying for, although the rising sectarianism in the country has brazenly affected multiple arenas; this could be found in the clear-cut wedge between those who promote normalization and those who fight against imperialism. What makes this divide distinctive is that it is not restricted to intellectual and elitist circles, but has rather seeped into the population as a whole.  

“Israel’s” failed experience with the full-scale war in 2006, with its adamancy to carry on the model of the Second War, the Third War’s main target is to incite domestic tensions with a number of means. This means politicizing the August 4 Beirut Blast investigations by directing accusations towards one public, hence setting a number of officials as scapegoats in an attempt to generate chaos.  

Beginning with the sniping at a funeral in Khaldeh, to another shooting at peaceful demonstrators at Adlieh, with deaths and injuries piling after every event, one cannot detach the sequence of events from an Israeli logical framework that has, through history, employed small tools with large effects. In other words, when the Second War failed to scale up sectarian tensions into a civil war, the Israelis placed a number of snipers and armed men atop buildings: Blood will only beget blood, and disaster will loom on the horizon.

However, what happened at Adliyeh isn’t exclusive to Lebanon: The pattern could be observed across multiple grounds – what happened in Iraq is subject to the same logic and sequence. The abrasive war eventually spawned a resistance, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), which compelled Biden to withdraw from Iraq before the end of the year and to tone down on his camouflaged rhetoric, forcing him to stick to advisory missions. In the midst of experiencing vicious terrorism over the years, the PMF was exposed to sectarian propaganda in Iraq - the War of Ideas - before facing the Third War where domestic tensions arose, elections were tampered with, and public fury-inducing normalization conferences were organized in the north. With its power to provoke and incite unrest, this sequence of events equates to snipers aiming their weapons from Beirut rooftops at the heads of peaceful protesters. 

Domestic tension is the upcoming theme of the season, as “Israel” grows more and more desperate. With time, “Israel” realizes that the motions of the region’s geopolitics are moving against its interests, especially as the US rolls back its withering empire. In the upcoming phase, “Israel” will display a frantic obsession with instigating internal chaos. This behavior refers back to its desire for larger “presents” from the US before further withdrawal. 

“Israel” flounders amid unprecedented regional settlements, an experience it never dealt with, even following its previous wars.