“Lebanon Debate”
Attention is turning to southern Lebanon, where field developments still raise question marks about the fate of the ceasefire and the possibility of establishing it permanently. While indications are increasing that regional understandings are approaching that may include multiple files, from the American-Iranian relationship to regional security arrangements, Israel continues its military operations and movements in a number of border areas, in an attempt to achieve what it considers security goals that have not yet been achieved.
In this context, retired Brigadier General Fadi Daoud, in an interview with Lebanon Debate, explains the background of the current field scene, reads into the implications of the Israeli military movements in the south, and also discusses the chances of success of the political efforts aimed at establishing a ceasefire, and the repercussions of any potential regional agreement on the Lebanese reality.
Retired Brigadier General Fadi Dawoud stresses that the question asked today is not whether Israel will withdraw or not, but rather whether it has obtained sufficient security guarantees to prompt it to talk about withdrawal.
He pointed out that the facts on the ground do not suggest that Israel has had enough of its military operations or that it has achieved the security goals it set for itself.
He explains that the continuation of the fighting in Majdalzon on the outskirts of Wadi Al-Saluki confirms that the military action is still ongoing. Wadi Al-Saluki all the way to Wadi Al-Hujayr are of great military importance, as they contain forced corridors used by military movements, and there is a bridge on which the mechanisms are obliged to stop, and thus targeting these bridges hinders the progress of the military convoys.
He adds that these valleys constitute extremely important natural ambush points, and therefore they still constitute a major axis in Israeli military operations. Hence, the continuation of work on these military points indicates, in his opinion, that Israel has not yet achieved what it considers its security goals.
He cites the continuation of operations in the Ali Al-Taher area. In the year 2000, for example, there were Beaufort Castle, Ali Al-Taher, Dabsha Hill, and Al-Tahra Hill. These three hills in the military concept form support for each other and surround the city of Nabatieh and support each other, and they are also effectively supported by Beaufort Arnoun Castle. This is the military action that Israel is trying to work on.
He explains that the Israelis began their attack from Arnoun on two lines, one towards Ali Al-Tahir and the other towards Kafr Tibnit, and the fighting is still continuing there. This continuation does not indicate a cessation of fighting or withdrawal, but rather means that we may witness American pressure, but we do not know the extent of these pressures or the extent of Israel’s commitment to them.
He says: “If Israel has achieved its goals, it becomes much easier to oblige it, but since the movement on the ground says that it has not achieved its goals, the ceasefire requires double pressure from the Americans to compel it to cease the fire.”
He points out that the ceasefire itself is not the final goal, and explains that the fundamental questions begin after the ceasefire, including: Who will return the residents to their villages? Who will undertake the reconstruction? From the Lebanese perspective, and from the Israeli perspective, the question is what guarantees are required to prevent the party from returning to building tunnels and combat equipment. A ceasefire requires prior answers to these questions.
Regarding the possibility of the war continuing for reasons related to the elections, whether in Israel or the United States, Daoud believes that the electoral factor alone is not enough to explain the course of the war. For US President Donald Trump, stopping the war may be an important electoral factor, but in Israel the situation is different, as opinion polls indicate, according to him, that a large percentage of Israelis, reaching 70%, support the continuation of the war, which constitutes an extremely dangerous indicator.
The Brigadier General does not expect a full Israeli commitment to the ceasefire in the foreseeable future, and if a truce is reached, it will only last for a few months, especially since the parties to the grand agreement that affects Lebanon did not achieve its goals, and thus we have returned to the reality before the regional clash, which prompts the question: Why did the battle begin?
He continues: “If we return to the reasons that led to the outbreak of the confrontation in the first place, we find that the goals set by the various parties were not achieved. Neither the Americans achieved their goals, nor the Israelis achieved their goals, nor did the Iranians achieve their goals, and therefore the roots of the clash still exist.”
He concludes by saying that all the confrontations and human and material losses that the region has witnessed constitute a great waste, which has not yet led to a final settlement that addresses the basic causes of the conflict, which means that the possibility of a return to tension remains at any time.
