Israel’s relentless bombardment of Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon is no defensive reflex but a strategic doctrine. Targeting commanders, infrastructures, and supply routes reflects a long-term policy of attrition, aimed at crippling Hezbollah’s military capacity while keeping Lebanon politically constrained and diplomatically cornered. Farcical
This is not war; it is siege warfare by another name.
For Tel Aviv, the present setup is perfect. Hezbollah is pounded time and again, but Lebanon as a state is unable to retaliate. The Lebanese Armed Forces are factionalized, underfinanced, and politically hobbled. The Israeli military can act with impunity while the international community does little more than pay lip service.
**The theatre of broken promises**
For Benjamin Netanyahu, this is perfection. The so-called ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon have become little more than intervals between bombardments—pauses that allow Israel to wreak havoc with its targeting systems. No one retaliates. Washington remains conspicuously silent. And Netanyahu appears before his domestic audience as Mr. Tough Guy: the uncompromising defender of Israeli security, the man who makes no apologies and offers no concessions.
The recent Israeli strike on the Ain el-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp in southern Lebanon laid bare the cynicism of this arrangement. On Tuesday, 18 November, an Israeli drone struck a car near a mosque in the camp, killing at least 13 people, most of them children and students. Israel claimed it was targeting a Hamas training compound; Hamas countered that the strike hit a sports playground used by camp residents. The Lebanese Health Ministry confirmed that ambulances continued transporting wounded to nearby hospitals hours after the attack. It was the deadliest strike on Lebanon since the ceasefire supposedly took effect one year ago.
This was not an isolated incident. Just the very next day, on Wednesday, the Israeli military issued eviction notices to residents of four villages in southern Lebanon: Deir Kifa, Chehour, Tayr Falsay, and Aynata, ordering them out in a matter of minutes before Israeli fighter jets leveled targeted buildings. The warnings, which were posted on social media, identified buildings that were allegedly used by Hezbollah and instructed people to leave “immediately” for their own safety. Within hours, thick plumes of smoke hung across the villages as Israel’s aerial bombardment reduced homes and infrastructure to rubble.
These warnings of evacuations have become a grotesque ritual: a performative gesture that allows Israel to claim that it is minimising civilian casualties while guaranteeing the displacement, traumatization, and homelessness of entire communities. Such warnings are neither safe nor effective; they are a mere legal fig leaf for collective punishment.
**Washington’s fantasy of disarmament**
The stark ultimatum presented by the United States is that Lebanon must disarm Hezbollah before the end of 2025. Not only is this unrealistic, but it is incendiary. Hezbollah is not some rogue militia but a deeply entrenched political and military force with a legacy of resistance, with a constituency that sees its disarmament as surrender.
Special Envoy Tom Barrack said in Beirut, “The Lebanese government has done their part… now what we need is Israel to comply with that equal handshake”. But this so-called handshake is a trap. The four-phase US plan envisions Hezbollah’s complete disarmament in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Yet Israel has shown no intention of honoring such a deal, and Hezbollah has rejected it outright.
The cancellation of the Lebanese army chief’s visit to Washington is a diplomatic rebuke. It signals American frustration not just with Hezbollah’s defiance, but with Lebanon’s refusal to act as Washington’s enforcer.
READ:
**The choked arteries of resistance**
Syria was once the lifeline for Iranian arms to Hezbollah. Israeli airstrikes and shifting regional alliances have largely severed that corridor. Hezbollah’s rearmament today is precarious, with this land route compromised and maritime channels under observation.
This is why Israel’s strikes have become more frequent and more precise. Each drone, each missile, is a message: Hezbollah must not rise again. But the message is also a gamble. The longer Hezbollah absorbs these blows without response, the greater the pressure to retaliate—not just to preserve deterrence, but to salvage dignity.
As observed by security analyst Ali Rizk: “If the Israelis withdraw, there is good reason to believe that Hezbollah will be willing to discuss a national defence strategy”. But Israel refuses to entertain such conditionality. It wants disarmament without withdrawal, submission without reciprocity.
**The Iran Question: Uranium, ultimatums, and unfinished wars**
While Lebanon bleeds, the shadow of a larger confrontation looms. At this week’s meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors in Vienna, the European troika – France, Britain, and Germany – joined the United States in tabling a resolution demanding Iran stop uranium enrichment, immediately open up nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the US in June, and submit complete reports on its stockpiles of enriched uranium.
The resolution, adopted Thursday over Iranian objections, calls on Tehran to fully implement the Additional Protocol and allow broad, unannounced inspections at what the IAEA terms “undeclared facilities.” It accuses Iran of noncompliance with its safeguards commitments and claims that inspectors have been denied access to key sites for the past 5 months.
Iran’s reaction was immediate and angry: Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi threatened that, if the resolution is approved, Tehran will conduct a “fundamental review” of its policies. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi denied any cooperation with respect to the bombed sites: “We only cooperate regarding nuclear facilities which have not been affected, in compliance with IAEA regulations.”
The resolution is at once punitive and absurd. Iran has made it clear that it won’t relinquish its right to enrich uranium, a right guaranteed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet the West demands capitulation in return for no condemnation of the illegal strikes on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities. The silence from the IAEA on the June attacks has already cost it credibility in Tehran; this resolution may well sever what remains of diplomatic engagement.
What’s next? A second joint US-Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure cannot be ruled out. A first strike in June killed nuclear scientists and destroyed facilities under IAEA safeguards, as well as prompted Iran to suspend cooperation with the agency. A second strike would all but ensure a regional conflagration—one that either diplomacy or sanctions could not contain.
**The moral collapse of American mediation**
Tom Barrack, once hailed as Trump’s emissary to the Arab world, finds himself mired in a scandal. His alleged entanglement in the Epstein files has served only to tarnish his image and provided Lebanese media with a moral cudgel. A man who once brokered regional diplomacy now stands accused of moral bankruptcy.
It is not a distraction, but a revelation-one that lays bare the hollowness of American mediation, the duplicity of its envoys, and the moral vacuum at the heart of its foreign policy. When the messenger is compromised, the message loses its force.
**Conclusion: The next war is a matter of time**
Israel’s airstrikes may delay Hezbollah’s resurgence, but they cannot eradicate its roots. American ultimatums may intimidate Beirut, but they cannot will a state into being that can disarm a movement forged in resistance. And Hezbollah, for all its discipline, cannot swallow humiliation forever.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun recently warned: “The language of negotiation is more important than the language of war… we have seen what \[war\] did to us”. But if diplomacy fails, the region may soon be reminded of what war still can do.
But for now, Netanyahu basks in his moment. The ceasefires are a sham, the international community is paralysed, and the United States offers cover rather than constraint. Yet this balance is a false one. It is not peace—it is provocation. And provocation, history teaches, has a way of answering itself.
**OPINION: [Holier than thou, now hollow: Hezbollah, Israel, and Tom Barrack’s ignominious fall](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251116-holier-than-thou-now-hollow-hezbollah-israel-and-tom-barracks-ignominious-fall/)**
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.