:

The scope of the Israeli attack on Lebanon is expanding, as there are no longer limits to its targeted areas, as the raids included Beirut and multiple areas in the country, which increases fears about a more dangerous phase that may go beyond the traditional confrontation.

From this standpoint, questions arise about the Israeli goals of this escalation. Is it just a limited military operation or part of a larger project that seeks to impose new realities in the region?

In this context, retired Brigadier General Taqi al-Din al-Tanir presents an analysis of the military and political scene, focusing on the implications of the Israeli escalation and its effects on Lebanon, in addition to the risks associated with the repercussions of the war on the Lebanese internal situation and its national unity.

In an interview with , Brigadier General Taqi al-Din al-Tanir believes that Israel has escalated its aggression against Lebanon in an unprecedented manner, and the strikes are no longer limited to specific areas, but rather have extended to Beirut and different regions of the country, which raises questions about whether Israel has decided to launch a fatal blow to Lebanon.

He points out that Israel, regardless of what is happening between Iran and the United States in the region, seems to have received something like a “green light,” and was waiting for the appropriate opportunity to exploit it, taking advantage of the United States’ preoccupation with other issues.

He focuses on the Israeli ambition, which is similar to what was previously known as the “security belt,” indicating that Israel may seek to expand this belt according to what field conditions allow, so that it extends over an area that may range between 250 and 300 square kilometers, and may reach further areas.

According to Al-Tanir, what is happening in the south is accompanied by systematic destruction, as the strikes began in the area south of the Litani, but later extended to other areas such as Al-Zahrani, and may later expand to include Sidon and additional areas.

He stresses that the Israeli strikes will not stop there, despite the Israeli Air Force’s preoccupation with striking Iran, considering that the next stage may witness more severe and destructive strikes, which means more killing, displacement and displacement of the Lebanese people who are already suffering from difficult circumstances.

As for the rest of the Lebanese regions, Al-Tanir believes that Israel seeks, through its strikes, to increase pressure on the Lebanese government and the Lebanese people by directing painful and successive strikes, as happened in Beirut and in areas of the administrative capital, and not just in the southern suburbs, which, according to his description, are subjected to a process of systematic destruction taking place in full view of the world.

He added that the strikes are also continuing in the Bekaa region, believing that Israel may, at a later stage, launch a major strike towards the eastern chain, where it believes there is a large stock of ballistic missiles and precision missiles belonging to Hezbollah.

Regarding whether this expansion might lead to the establishment of a security zone that Israel seeks to annex within the framework of what is known as the “Greater Israel” project, Al-Tanir says that Israel has been seeking for decades to divide the Arab world into sectarian and sectarian entities, so that the Zionist entity remains the strongest militarily and the most armed in the region.

He adds that what we are witnessing today is an extension of this project that appears from time to time in various forms, stressing that Israel will continue its war in an attempt to control, whether militarily or economically, the Middle East region, especially in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

He believes that this dominance is not limited to military power only, but is also reinforced by American support and Israeli military superiority, especially in the field of air force and military technology.

Regarding the ability of Lebanon or Iran to thwart or obstruct this project, Al-Tanir expresses his deep concern about the reality of internal division in Lebanon, noting that some media and political discourses tend towards questioning the Lebanese army and trying to attack the military institution from within, which contributes to weakening national unity.

In this context, he wonders: Where is the national unity? Where is the solidarity and cooperation between the Lebanese? Where are the human ties that are supposed to unite the people of one people?

He says that it is true that there are individual manifestations of solidarity among the Lebanese, but at the general level, political and sectarian divisions and differences are still strongly present, which weakens the country’s ability to face challenges.

He believes that confronting any external project requires first strengthening national unity and a sense of belonging to the homeland, and placing the Lebanese national interest above any narrow or factional interests.

He warns that the absence of this feeling may lead to further division, dispersion, and weakness, which serves external projects.

Regarding the possibility of repeating the Israeli occupation scenario, as happened in 1982, Al-Tanir says that he does not believe that Israel will resort to a large ground invasion as happened at that time, indicating that the nature of wars has changed today.

He adds that modern wars rely mainly on air power and military technology, which allows for severe strikes without the need for large-scale ground entry.

He believes that Israel is today trying to inflict as much destruction as possible on the Lebanese infrastructure, in parallel with a systematic population displacement policy, leading to waves of internal displacement and the accompanying social, economic, and security problems that may affect internal stability.

He confirms that what worries him most is that the full Israeli air force has not yet been used in the Lebanese arena, due to its preoccupation with other fronts.

He adds that if the air strikes stop for a period, this does not necessarily mean that Israel has abandoned its goals, but rather it may be in the process of rearranging its priorities before completing its project in Lebanon.

Al-Tanir concludes by saying that one of the primary goals that Israel seeks is to disarm Hezbollah, or at least permanently remove it from its northern borders and from the settlements in northern Israel, as it claims.