World does not need another global front line in Lebanon

If the expected Israeli attack on Lebanon ends up with an occupation of part of south Lebanon and the creation of a buffer zone maintained by mutual deterrence, it will empower Hezbollah and create a front line for global confrontation in this increasingly bipolar world.

The Ukraine war created such a front line and clarified the divisions. The war between Russia and Ukraine involves Europe and the US and their allies on Kyiv’s side and Iran, China and their allies in support of Moscow. Some countries have tried to keep a distance and remain neutral.

In Lebanon, the global front line will also not be solely between Lebanon and Israel. It will boost Hezbollah’s power and bring it support from Russia, China, Iran and their local and global allies. It will be a direct confrontation between the two sides involved in Ukraine, but one in which they have an advantage and in which very few will be able to be neutral.

An occupation of Lebanese territory would also be a gift to Hezbollah. The Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000 was a blow to its legitimacy. It turned it from a force resisting occupation into a resistance force in search of an occupation. The excuse of minor border irregularities, including the Shebaa Farms, was unconvincing and not enough to legitimate its arms, which it had started using against its internal opponents and critics.

In early July 2006, there was an additional element to Hezbollah’s legitimacy problem. Syria had also withdrawn from Lebanon and there was pressure on Hezbollah to give up its arms and join in with rebuilding the country after the euphoria of the Cedar Revolution. Lebanon had been brought back in from the cold with what seemed like intensive international protection through several UN Security Council resolutions. Minor border and prisoner issues could be resolved through the help of the UN and there was intensive European mediation to do that.

A clear indication of the war’s wider potential came when Nasrallah last week threatened Cyprus

Nadim Shehadi

This all changed when Israel launched a major attack on July 12, 2006, triggered by a Hezbollah guerilla operation across the border, kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight. Hezbollah regained its title as a resistance force against an aggressive neighbor with designs on its territory and it also became the protector, gaining popular support all over the Arab region. It declared victory by the mere fact that it survived and it continued, through assassinations and the maintenance of a constant state of war and paralysis, to control the country. Less than 20 years later, it reigns supreme over a hollowed-out and paralyzed state.

One of Hamas’ achievements in the Gaza war is that it has imposed itself as the main interlocutor with the West. When was the last time anyone visited Ramallah? Instead, officials and diplomats go to Cairo and Doha to negotiate indirectly with Hamas. Hezbollah has achieved this in Lebanon too. It has become the main interlocutor to avoid war. A clear indication of the war’s wider scope and potential came when Hassan Nasrallah last week threatened Cyprus, which is part of the EU and hence an ally of NATO and the West.

But Hezbollah’s control is not complete. There is opposition to its actions and a wide belief in the country that it is dragging it into an unnecessary and destructive war that it cannot handle. Hezbollah still silences opposition through assassinations, like that of cultural entrepreneur and activist Lokman Slim, or through pure bullying and accusations of treason, which journalists are subjected to daily.

An Israeli occupation in south Lebanon would be a gift to Hezbollah and its allies in the region. It would regain its legitimacy and its critics would be silenced, without any arguments against its hold over the country. It would be another divine victory not over Israel but over the rest of Lebanon, which will then be completely under its control.

In this situation, the new border — maintained by mutual deterrence — will be turned into a front line between two global alliances. Hezbollah will be the vanguard of resistance against American hegemony and will receive aid and support from China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and all the countries keen to see the defeat of Israel and the US on the global scene.

America’s allies in the region and those aspiring for peace and normalization with Israel will also lose any arguments. This is not a front they can be neutral on and they will have to contend with a growing internal opposition to normalization after Gaza and Lebanon. Any prospects for peace and stability in the region will be on hold for a long time.

Lebanon has always been the weather vane of regional stability. Historically, regional tensions appeared in Lebanon first because this is the only place where they can have expression. The battle of ideas that will shape the future of the region and indeed much of the global order has already started in Lebanon, and from there it can spread. If Israel creates such favorable circumstances, the beneficiaries will primarily be its enemies and also those of the EU and of the West.

Ukraine can look like a minor regional conflict with limited scope by comparison. The front line in south Lebanon will involve a confrontation between all the forces already active in Ukraine, in addition to the confrontation between the West and the Muslim world.

The new front line will also dwarf the repercussions of the Gaza war. In the Gaza war, there is a semblance of two sides, and Israel can claim some justification following the Oct. 7 massacre by Hamas. On balance, it is obvious that Israel has lost more than it has gained in the court of global public opinion. The brutality that Israel has demonstrated in Gaza will translate as sympathy to Hezbollah and will further divide Western societies.

It is impossible to exaggerate the consequences of opening another front line for global confrontation in south Lebanon. An Israeli invasion must therefore be prevented at any cost.

• Nadim Shehadi is an economist and political adviser. He has held positions in academia and think tanks in Europe and the US. He ran a program on the regional dimension of the Middle East Peace Process at Chatham House. X: @Confusezeus