Since the assassinations of Fouad Shukur in Beirut and Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Israel has heightened its defense readiness against potential retaliatory strikes from Iran and its proxies. A broader, coordinated assault by Iran’s allies across the region is possible in response to these targeted killings. An international coalition, led by the United States and including regional Arab states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, is also ramping up its defenses. While these nations do not directly state their involvement in protecting Israel, they emphasize a commitment to intercept threats that breach their airspace to protect their sovereignty.
Iran and Hezbollah consider this period of heightened tension and anticipation a tactical success. For them, the situation is not just a psychological achievement but a strategic one. It serves their goal of exhausting Israel through prolonged military alertness, economic strain, and societal fatigue, eroding public trust in the military, government, and national institutions.
Over the past ten months, it has become evident that although Iran and Hezbollah may not desire a large-scale regional conflict and are concerned of deeper American involvement in the pending attack—compared to the missile attack on Israel on April 14, 2024—they nonetheless feel bound to respond in a manner that both restores their honor and deters Israel from carrying out similar actions in the future.
Iran and Hezbollah project confidence and determination, likely stemming from a sense of strategic superiority over Israel. The events of October 7 created a strategic comfort zone for them, primarily due to U.S. reluctance to escalate the regional conflict or target Iranian assets. However, a disconnect persists between their fiery rhetoric and their awareness of the need for a measured response. An unrestrained reaction could jeopardize their strategic position, exposing vulnerabilities and provoking a severe Israeli response with American support.
A Dangerous Historical Precedent
Israel’s current state of waiting-for-what-comes-next is the product of a strategic distortion that has taken root over the years in its relations with Hezbollah and Iran. Hezbollah’s “balance of deterrence” formula, combined with Iran’s proxy strategy and efforts to develop military nuclear capabilities, have significantly shaped Israel’s strategic conduct long before the current conflict—and certainly since it began.
Israel now finds itself engaged in an intense war of attrition with Hezbollah and Iran’s proxies, which constrains its operational flexibility and forces it to divide attention and resources across multiple fronts. Even more troubling, for the past ten months, Israel has been trapped in a situation dictated by Hezbollah’s formula: the organization vows to continue fighting as long as the conflict in Gaza persists.
This reality has resulted in the deaths and injuries of civilians and soldiers, severe damage to communities and infrastructure, harm to agriculture and production sectors, and environmental devastation from the burning of vast forested areas. Tens of thousands of civilians have also been displaced from their homes.
Effectively, within Israel’s own sovereign territory, a buffer zone has emerged where Israel operates militarily. This situation not only creates a dangerous historical precedent that fundamentally contradicts the core principles of Israel’s security doctrine, but it also reflects a profound erosion of Israel’s deterrence and the ethos of settlement and landholding, which the military was meant to protect and ensure would flourish.
A Strategic Way Out
Israel’s strategic preference remains focused on the southern front, while in the north, it aims to fortify defenses and target Hezbollah’s military assets, including eliminating operatives at various levels. One key factor behind this approach is U.S. pressure to avoid escalating the conflict with Hezbollah and to moderate Israel’s response toward Iran. Iran, however, continues to escalate tensions systematically—exhausting Israel through its proxies and reinforcing terror infrastructures in the West Bank as compensation for Hamas’ weakening grip in Gaza.
After ten months of warfare, Israel faces increasing tension with the U.S., driven by concerns about potential delays in the supply of crucial weapons needed for both ongoing combat and possible escalation with Hezbollah. This has deterred Israel from unilaterally altering the existing rules of engagement. Although Israel has demonstrated impressive intelligence and operational capabilities by eliminating high-value Hezbollah targets, these actions have not fundamentally shifted the balance in the north.
However, attacks by Iran or Hezbollah in retaliation for these assassinations could present Israel with a strategic opportunity. If the attacks are broad enough, they may provide the legitimacy Israel needs to reshape the existing dynamics. To evaluate the opportunities posed by such retaliation, it is essential to map out the key threats Israel faces from Iran and Lebanon. These are not the only threats—Israel also contends with conflict in the West Bank and attacks by other Iranian proxies, such as the Houthis in Yemen and Iranian-backed militias in southern Syria and western Iraq. The Gaza Strip also remains a factor, though it appears that the threat from Gaza has drastically diminished, with Israel progressing steadily toward the full dismantling of Hamas in the region.
The Threat from Lebanon
Hezbollah’s threat to Israel consists of two primary components:
A direct threat to northern Israel: This includes the potential for an invasion of communities and IDF outposts, accompanied by diverse attacks on the above. Hezbollah’s invasion could be executed via ground, underground, maritime, or airborne incursions, and would be backed by heavy fire from Lebanese territory. This fire would consist of both indirect fire (missiles, cruise missiles, drones, rockets, and mortars) and direct fire (anti-tank missiles and machine guns).
The broader strategic threat: The second component is infrastructural and more powerful, encompassing the first component while extending beyond northern Israel to encompass the entire country. This threat has been enabled by the military capability Hezbollah has developed under the auspices of the Lebanese state. Built through substantial Iranian effort and funding, this threat includes an array of diverse firepower deployed throughout Lebanon, often under civilian cover and, in many cases, in underground tunnel networks painstakingly constructed over years. In addition, Hezbollah has established a maneuverable military force for both defense and offense.
This entire structure operates as part of Iran’s proxy network, originally designed for activation on command—whether to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure or, once Iran achieves nuclear or near-nuclear status, to pursue regional hegemony under the security umbrella that such status would provide. With this strategic advantage, Iran could accelerate its regional ambitions, including the ultimate goal of Israel’s destruction.
The International Tangle
Hezbollah’s dual-threat structure presents a severe security challenge for Israel, one that the state cannot tolerate indefinitely. Following Hamas’ attack on October 7th and concerns that Hezbollah might join the fight and carry out its invasion threat, Israel bolstered its defenses by deploying reserve forces to the north and evacuating vulnerable communities. Guided by Iranian directives, Hezbollah has engaged in the conflict primarily through indirect fire, consistently expanding the scope, range, and intensity of its attacks.
Iran’s threat also consists of two main components. The first involves its nuclear program, encompassing both the development of nuclear warheads (the Uranium enrichment program) and the capabilities to launch them (the “Weapons Group”). Alongside the nuclear threat, Iran is building conventional firepower based on missiles, drones, and cruise missiles, and is also developing offensive cyber capabilities targeting Israel.
Furthermore, Iran has amassed a substantial arsenal of thousands—or even tens of thousands—of weapons ready to be launched from Iran and elsewhere toward Israel. A demonstration of this threat occurred on April 14, 2024, when Iran and its proxies fired about 300 projectiles of various kinds at Israel.
The challenge for Israel becomes increasingly complex as the axis led by Iran, with Hezbollah and Hamas as two of its key components, receives support from Russia and China. Both are revisionist powers that reject the current world order and American hegemony, working actively to destabilize and reshape it. Their support manifests across several fronts, with military cooperation being among the most concerning. For instance, Iran supplies drones and missiles to Russia for its war in Ukraine, while Russia, in turn, has committed to providing advanced surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs) and Sukhoi-35 fighter jets to Iran. As the regional conflict involving Israel drags on, this coalition solidifies further, extending to include North Korea, with deepening collaboration that broadens Iran’s operational options.
Potential Scenarios
Evaluating the strategic opportunities available to Israel in response to Iranian retaliation requires a focused assessment based on the threats outlined above. Several scenarios emerge concerning Lebanon:
Targeted Action to Clear Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon: This scenario aims to restore Israeli sovereignty in the north, allowing the return of residents and the rebuilding of communities. The IDF would strike targets in southern Lebanon, including infrastructure used by Hezbollah—such as power supply networks, bridges, and transportation routes—and destroy military assets, even those embedded in civilian areas. Lebanese civilians would be urged to evacuate the south for their safety.
A ground operation could follow, with the IDF seizing control of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, eliminating Hezbollah forces and infrastructure, and pushing remaining forces beyond the Litani. Any post-conflict arrangement would need to ensure security control over key areas, with intelligence dominance and operational freedom for Israel, preventing the enemy’s return to the south.
Israel would aim to contain the fighting to its northern border, but if Iran chooses to sacrifice Hezbollah for its southern stronghold, the conflict could expand to encompass all of Lebanon.
A Broad Offensive Across Lebanon: This scenario seeks to fundamentally alter the security dynamics in the north. It would involve a widespread attack on critical Lebanese infrastructure, even deep within the country, prompting swift international intervention to end the conflict. Israel, in turn, would demand a fundamental change in Lebanon’s status as a condition for ceasefire negotiations.
In tandem, the IDF would conduct comprehensive strikes on Hezbollah’s military capabilities across Lebanon. Although such an offensive would trigger retaliatory fire from Iran, Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies, the higher the cost imposed on Lebanon and Hezbollah, the more likely it is that a new security arrangement could be achieved. This could include establishing a buffer zone for the IDF in southern Lebanon and a significant—if only partial—dismantling of Hezbollah’s military capabilities.
The New Equation
To counter an Iranian attack, Israel has various strategic options targeting critical elements within Iran. First, Israel could strike Iranian nuclear facilities, aiming to disrupt progress on their nuclear program, even if only temporarily. Second, Israel might target critical Iranian infrastructure—including power, energy, ports, oil facilities, and national symbols—serving two goals: to inflict a heavy cost on Iran and to potentially trigger internal unrest, challenging governmental stability.
Strategically, Iran remains pivotal in Israel’s prolonged conflict, now intensified since the October 7 attack. Hezbollah, identified as a significant strategic threat, and Hamas, which was previously underestimated, are both integral to Iran’s regional axis, which it has carefully cultivated over years to wear down Israel and drive it toward collapse. This axis has limited Israel’s operational options, entrapping it within a narrow and disadvantageous framework of deterrence, leading to a strategic disadvantage in the face of Iran and its proxies.
Israel’s decision to focus mainly on the southern front, engaging in an attrition war defined largely by Hezbollah’s constraints, has created a reality that affects sovereignty and daily life in northern Israel, with substantial economic, environmental, and social fallout. This reality highlights a troubling imbalance in which Iran—although opposed by a robust international coalition—can severely restrict Israel’s actions. Israel thus faces the need to transform any Iranian or Hezbollah response into a chance to fundamentally shift the regional dynamics, redefining the rules and establishing a new strategic framework.
