As Israel Invades, the US Must Push for Peace in Lebanon

The US must push for a ceasefire in Lebanon. Currently, Israel is carrying out a land offensive against Hezbollah, an Iran-aligned Islamist militant group based in Lebanon’s south. A diplomatic deal removing Hezbollah from Lebanon’s southern border with Israel and replacing it with the Lebanese Armed Forces, a US-supported army would deal a blow to Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.”
Continued escalation by Israel, on the other hand, will increase the likelihood of another Lebanese Civil War or a wider regional conflagration. It may also play right into the hands of Hezbollah.
Ever since the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on Friday, September 27, US policy regarding Israel’s invasion of Lebanon has been opaque. Earlier that week, the US had collaborated with France and several allied nations in presenting a 21-day ceasefire proposal to Israel and Lebanon, as well as indirectly to Hezbollah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flip-flopped on the proposal throughout much of that week.
At the same time, there are reports that the US, while publicly calling for the ceasefire, tacitly gave Israel some form of approval to escalate heavily in Lebanon. Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib has also stated that Israel was aware Hezbollah accepted the proposal and then decided to assassinate the organization’s leader Hassan Nasrallah and proceed with a bombing campaign and ground invasion of Lebanon.
Israel’s official war objective vis-à-vis Lebanon is to create a safe border area so that the roughly 60,000 Israelis displaced by Hezbollah rocket attacks in the north can return to their homes. Yet the US has publicly stated that the fastest and ultimately the most sustainable way to achieve this is diplomacy. Israel has invaded Lebanon four times over the past five decades and has, to date, been unable to eliminate all threats to its security by force. In any event, there can be no diplomatic deal while Lebanon is under invasion.
Further, the longer Israel continues to escalate with Hezbollah, the greater the risk of a state-to-state war with its backer Iran becomes.
A ceasefire is the first step in the diplomatic process. It would enable the deployment of US-supported Lebanese Armed Forces to the border area and ultimately facilitate the demarcation of the Israel–Lebanon land border so that civilian communities are protected for generations to come.
Israel’s current invasion and bombing campaign of Lebanon are going far beyond their stated goal. It appears Israel is trying to eliminate Hezbollah completely, and there is no clear timetable or roadmap for how to do that.
It is quite likely that Israel’s overreach will backfire. Widespread civilian death and displacement are fueling resentment and anger towards Israel that ironically may drive people to join Hezbollah or other aligned groups.
Hezbollah’s origins as an organization trace back to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It bills itself as the defender of Lebanon. So, Israel’s land invasion of Lebanon is justifying the organization’s raison d’être. 
Furthermore, at a time when Hezbollah’s popularity has been waning in Lebanon, Israel’s brutal assaults in the country may actually be resuscitating the group. Hezbollah’s 2006 war with Israel greatly boosted its legitimacy and led to its heightened influence in government for years to come. While there is no doubt the organization is greatly weakened today, it is likely, with the violent assault against it, to revert back to its original framework, operating outside the state rather than cooperating with it. The last time this was the case, the group carried out brutal attacks and assassinations even outside the borders of Lebanon. Hezbollah may again pivot away from its affiliation with a corrupt political establishment and use popular resentment against Israel and, by extension, the US to justify itself and attract new followers.
There are two dangerous scenarios that continued hostilities in Lebanon can lead to. 
First, Israel’s invasion may destabilize Lebanon. Even prior to the outbreak of the ongoing Israel–Hamas war on October 7, 2023, Lebanon was one of the most fragile states in the world. The delicate balance of power between the country’s various sects had created a prolonged political gridlock. The humanitarian crisis Israel is creating, with already one million people internally displaced, will likely exasperate social tensions that could quite easily erupt into civil conflict and effective state collapse. In this scenario, malign actors will exploit the resulting power vacuum. The corresponding instability will be to Israel’s detriment. 
Secondly, the Israeli invasion may lead to a hot war with Iran. The US policy aim for the last year has been to diplomatically resolve this conflict, not to go to war with Iran and its terrorist allies. If Israel provokes such a conflict, it will put US forces and interests at threat of being attacked and would likely necessitate a direct US military commitment.
Even though Hezbollah is greatly crippled presently, it is still part of Iran’s axis. Iran has already responded to Israel’s escalation and attacked it directly. Israel’s strategy as of late appears to be to try and provoke Iran into a larger conflict. If the US is not careful, Iran may change its posture from avoiding a full-scale war with Israel to preparing for one. If this calculus changes, the US would necessarily have to intervene and then this conflict will have escalated to one between states with no clear offramp.
However, there is still time. Hezbollah Deputy Chief Nasim Qassem’s apparent de-linking of a ceasefire in Lebanon from a truce in Gaza could be a major breakthrough and indicator that Hezbollah may pivot its operations internally. Right now, Hezbollah does not pose the same threat to Israel’s security as it did one year ago and is signaling to Israel it is ready to end this conflict.
The US should leave no stone unturned in pushing Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah towards a ceasefire and diplomatic solution before it is too late.
[The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the American Task Force on Lebanon.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.