No one disagrees that the confrontation around Ali Al-Taher Hill has entered a very sensitive stage, in light of the continuing Israeli escalation, without, so far, conclusive indications that the region is heading towards a major battle or all-out war.
While it seems that Israel currently prefers a policy of gradual annihilation rather than going to a broad and direct confrontation, at least in light of regional circumstances, writer and political analyst Qasim Kassir believes that it is trying to end the battle of Ali Al-Taher Hill through a strategy based on gradual bombing, siege, and gradual advance, with the aim of reaching tunnels and military centers. Kassir confirms to Lebanon Debate that this approach is the most realistic for the Israeli army at the present time, because it allows it to achieve cumulative field gains without immediately pushing the region into a wide-scale war.
However, according to the information indicated by Kassir, this strategy did not fully achieve the results that Israel seeks, as attempts to reach some of the tunnels and centers did not resolve the battle, which leaves the hill an open arena for attrition and escalation.
But the question remains: Will the big battle take place soon? Kassir answers emphatically that, despite the atmosphere of escalation, going to a major battle is not a settled matter, as the possibility of widespread escalation remains, but it is the least likely at the current stage.
Kassir goes on to reveal Iranian messages indicating that Tehran may intervene if Israel decides to launch a major military action against Ali Al-Taher. He believes that, if these threats are true, then any Israeli decision to expand the battle may not remain confined to the Lebanese front, but rather could open the door to Iran entering, directly or indirectly, on the confrontation line.
Here lies the danger of Ali Al-Taher Hill, as the battle is not only related to a military site, but also to the possibility of it becoming a point of clash that links the Lebanese arena to the broader regional conflict. Kassir believes that what is happening in Lebanon cannot be separated from regional developments, especially those related to Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, and the paths of war and attrition in the region. The fronts, according to this reading, have become interconnected, and any major escalation in Lebanon could have repercussions that extend beyond the Lebanese borders.
In this context, Kassir believes that Iran is now faced with two options: to take advantage of developments on the ground to pressure a return to negotiations, or to use the continuation of the war of attrition to put pressure on the United States and take advantage of the impasse that Washington faces in the region.
But the threat of intervention does not necessarily mean that the decision to go to war has been taken, because Tehran, according to Kassir’s reading, is using its political and military capabilities as a tool of deterrence and pressure, while the decision to move to direct confrontation remains linked to the course of developments and the scale of the Israeli escalation.
In contrast to the military track, the political role of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri is highlighted, as he presented to the American Task Force delegation the possibility of reaching a solution based on Israel’s withdrawal from the areas it controls, in exchange for the entry of the Lebanese army. Kassir asserts that this initiative is of particular importance, because it opens a parallel path to military confrontation, based on an attempt to transform the Israeli withdrawal and the deployment of the Lebanese army, into an entry point to a settlement that prevents the expansion of the fighting.
But the basic question that remains unanswered, according to Kassir, is whether this proposal will specifically include Ali al-Taher Hill, as this point may be fundamental, because any settlement that excludes the hill may not end the causes of the clash, while including it in the formula of withdrawal and deployment of the Lebanese army could open the door to containing the battle.
The current scene places the hill in front of two contradictory paths: the first is military, based on Israel continuing its policy of gradual annihilation and trying to impose a new field reality, and the second is political, based on the search for a formula that leads to Israeli withdrawal and the deployment of the Lebanese army. In Short’s belief, the region appears to be facing a transitional phase open to possibilities. Widespread escalation is possible, but it is not the most likely scenario yet.
Lebanon Debate
