Published on 6/19/2026
The pace of military escalation in southern Lebanon continued in conjunction with the escalation of the internal political debate regarding responsibility for the collapse of the ceasefire process, and the role of both the Lebanese state and Hezbollah in managing the confrontation with Israel, amid an increasing link between field developments in Lebanon and the broader negotiating path between the United States and Iran.
For his part, academic and political researcher Ali Ahmed considered that the recent Israeli moves came in the context of an attempt to achieve gains on the ground before reaching any political arrangements or ceasefire understandings.
Ahmed explained to Al Jazeera that the Israeli army tried to advance towards the Ali al-Tahir Hills in southern Lebanon, based on the conviction that controlling the region would give it what he described as a “true victory,” especially in light of the increasing American pressure to push for a ceasefire, noting that Hezbollah dealt with the attempt through ambushes and repulsive operations that prevented achieving this goal.
He added that the striking development represented – according to his reading – Hezbollah’s transition from a strategy of flexible defense and attrition to declaring a clear position based on preventing Israeli forces from reaching the targeted area, considering that the recent confrontations led to Israeli human losses exceeding the officially announced numbers, which prompted Israel to intensify the bombing of the surrounding areas.
In this context, Ahmed saw that Israel is trying to take advantage of a limited period of time before establishing any ceasefire, with the aim of imposing new field facts that will give it strength during any subsequent negotiating process, considering that the recent developments are also linked to regional calculations that go beyond the Lebanese arena.
Crossing interests
On the other hand, the academic and researcher on Middle East issues, Nofal Dhao, presented a different reading, considering that the current escalation cannot be limited to Israel alone. Rather, there are – in his opinion – intersecting interests that push multiple parties towards continued tension.
Daou said that during the last stage, Iran allowed its state institutions to manage the negotiation process with the United States, while he believes that Hezbollah in Lebanon does not give the Lebanese official institutions sufficient space to manage the political and negotiating file, considering that insisting on combining military and political decisions weakens the state’s position.
He stressed that the Lebanese crisis is not limited to the Israeli attacks, but also includes the internal dispute over who is authorized to manage the confrontation and negotiate on behalf of Lebanon, adding that relying on military attrition to force Israel to retreat no longer achieves the same results as before.
In response to the calls to grant the Lebanese state a greater negotiating role, Ali Ahmed considered that the Lebanese state had already embarked on a negotiating path for a long period without achieving tangible results, and that Israel had not shown an actual willingness to respond to Lebanese demands or adhere to the terms of the ceasefire.
Ahmed also linked the escalation in Lebanon to the course of the American-Iranian understandings, considering that the continuation of military operations may directly reflect on the future of the negotiations, indicating that there is a state of mistrust within Iran regarding the ability of the United States to bind Israel to any possible understandings.
For his part, Nofal Daou stressed that the solution lies in fully restoring the Lebanese state institutions and granting them the authority to manage sovereign and negotiating files, considering that the continued multiplicity of decision-making centers weakens the Lebanese position internally and externally.
