شهدت منطقة البقاع شرق لبنان، ليل الجمعة السبت، تصعيداً عسكرياً كبيراً، بعد محاولة إنزال فاشلة نفذتها قوّة من العدو الاسرائيلي بغطاء جوّي، قادمة من الحدود السورية باتجاه السلسلة الشرقية ، وفق ما أعلنت “المقاومة الإسلامية” في لبنان.
“Masdar Diplomacy”
By Marlene Khalife
The latest war in Lebanon erupted after Hezbollah launched six volleys of rockets at Israeli positions at dawn on Monday, March 2, amid the collapse of the fragile and ambiguous November 27, 2024 agreement. The deal—brokered by the United States and France as guarantors and accepted by the Lebanese government—ultimately stood as testimony to the limitations of international diplomacy in the face of a growing loss of deterrence vis-à-vis Israel.
Despite the hopes invested in it, the agreement collapsed under the weight of repeated Israeli violations, coupled with the Lebanese government’s evident inability to enforce its implementation mechanisms. What became known as the “Mechanism Committee” proved a resounding failure, unable to curb escalation or provide sufficient guarantees to sustain calm, halt attacks, enable displaced residents to return to their homes in the south, launch reconstruction efforts, and secure the release of detainees.
Against the backdrop of this international diplomatic failure—and as an intense Iranian-American confrontation erupts across the region—Hezbollah has entered a new round of fighting with Israel, setting for itself strategic objectives that transcend conventional calculations of human losses and gains.
In its current assessment, the party is not seeking to maximize Israeli casualties as much as it aims to entrench a long-term “war of attrition” designed to exhaust Israel’s military and economic capabilities, inflicting structural losses that cannot be quickly compensated, according to well-informed sources closely following developments.
Militarily, Israel now appears under unprecedented strain along the northern front, stretching from the Mediterranean coast in the west to the heights of Mount Hermon in the east—a corridor of persistent tension ranging between 79 and 120 kilometers. Within this context, a fundamental shift has emerged in Hezbollah’s political narrative. According to reliable information obtained by the website Diplomatic Source, Hezbollah will no longer present itself as an isolated faction but rather as an organic component of the broader Arab mechanism of conflict with Israel—embedded within the Arab reality linked to the Palestinian cause. At the same time, it seeks to avoid portraying itself as the sole “spearhead,” instead positioning itself as an effective support force within a wider regional framework.
This strategic linkage became particularly evident in the coordination with Iranian strikes targeting “Greater Tel Aviv.” While Israeli defense systems were preoccupied with threats deep inside the country, Hezbollah moved to tighten what observers describe as a “pincer of pressure” from the north, effectively transforming the two fronts into a unified battlefield that Israel has thus far failed to decouple despite sustained military operations and political pressure.
Diplomatically, France entered the crisis through mediation led by President Emmanuel Macron at the request of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun. Yet the French proposal, according to political readings, leaned in favor of Israeli demands and adopted a “step-by-step” approach. The initiative called for Hezbollah’s withdrawal from south of the Litani River in exchange for Israel withdrawing from five newly established positions created after the 2024 war. It also envisioned Hezbollah handing over its weapons depots extending as far north as the city of Sidon, in return for Israel releasing detainees and halting aerial overflights and targeted killings over Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah firmly rejected the proposal, viewing it as falling short of the political ceiling it has set for itself. The party refuses any arrangements that do not guarantee a return to the situation that prevailed before it entered the war in support of Gaza. In practical terms, this would mean full freedom of movement in the villages of southern Lebanon, the legitimate presence of the Lebanese Army south of the Litani River, and leaving the area north of the river to a national defense strategy to be formulated by the Lebanese state.
At the core of Hezbollah’s position lies an effort to compel all parties to return to the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, free from the “circumvention policies” that characterized the period following the 2006 war. During that time, Israel repeatedly violated Lebanese sovereignty by land, sea, and air, while Hezbollah simultaneously expanded its military arsenal in the area south of the Litani River.
Today, the battlefield itself appears poised to draw the final contours of this confrontation, as the resistance insists that any solution must begin where the crisis itself began: with full respect for Lebanese sovereignty and a return to the rules of engagement that preceded the major escalation.
About the Author
