October 5, 2026
The field and political scene in Lebanon returns to the forefront of questions about the possibilities of escalation, amid varying readings between the threatening messages exchanged and calculations of negotiating pressure. These developments coincide with the appearance of an Iranian leader on the banks of the Litani River, and the display of a transmitter and receiver (pager) said to be of local manufacture, at a time when diplomatic channels continue to operate.
In this context, military expert, retired Brigadier General Marcel Baloukji, explained in a statement to the “Lebanon Debate” website, that “war has become a likely possibility, but it is not expected quickly.” The current mobilization and movements are considered an attempt to establish a “balance of deterrence” that affects the progress of the negotiations, far from being an indication of an imminent expansion of military operations, especially in the absence of fundamental developments that change the existing data, which keeps military force as an element of pressure in the background of the negotiating path.
In this climate, two main messages stand out: The first was the appearance of Hussein Yakta, identified as a commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, performing ablution on the banks of the Litani River in southern Lebanon, making threats to Israel, invoking the Tigris, Karbala, and the fate of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and concluding by saying: “We will pray in Jerusalem.” This recording sparked internal criticism about the sovereignty of the Lebanese state and the authority of the decision, which reflects the extension of its repercussions to discussions related to the use of the South as a platform for regional messages.
As for the second message, it is represented by the circulation of a video recording of a person presented as a member of “Hezbollah” reviewing a “pager” device that was allegedly manufactured locally, two years after the communications equipment explosions in September 2024. This review is seen as an effort to demonstrate the ability to absorb the previous blow and restore confidence in the communications system.
However, these media scenes do not necessarily reflect the full military field readiness, as displaying a communication device does not reveal the size of the system or its readiness, just as escalatory speeches do not outline the features of the next practical step, which makes these messages limited to their moral or deterrent framework without necessarily meaning an inevitable transition to open confrontation.
In conclusion, Brigadier General Baloukji believes that these crowds and messages remain part of efforts to improve conditions at the negotiating table by raising the cost of ignoring demands, an explanation that does not completely eliminate the possibility of things getting out of control or a confrontation erupting later, with the field remaining the basic criterion for evaluating the compass of events.
