Israel–Lebanon: Background, Claims, and Possible Consequences
By Dr Ashraf Chohan
Chief Editor Daily Rapid Lahore
Context of the claim
Reports circulating in Israeli media allege that Donald Trump has given political backing to Israel for a potential military operation in Lebanon, with the final decision resting with Benjamin Netanyahu. While such reports should be treated cautiously until independently confirmed, they fit a long-standing pattern of brinkmanship along Israel’s northern frontier.
⸻
A brief history of Lebanon’s political divide
Lebanon’s system is built on a fragile sectarian power-sharing arrangement among Maronite Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Druze. The 1975–1990 civil war entrenched militia politics and foreign involvement. Post-war governance has been weak, allowing Hezbollah—a Shiite movement backed by Iran—to emerge as a dominant military actor alongside (and often stronger than) the Lebanese state. This internal duality—state institutions versus an armed non-state actor—defines Lebanon’s vulnerability.
⸻
Israel’s claims and strategic rationale
Israel frames any escalation as self-defence, citing Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets, cross-border attacks, and the group’s alignment with Iran. Israel does not claim Lebanese territory in the conventional sense; its security focus is the northern border, prevention of advanced weapons transfers, and pushing Hezbollah away from the frontier (often referencing UN Security Council Resolution 1701 after the 2006 war).
⸻
Lebanese defence posture
Lebanon’s regular army is under-resourced and politically constrained; deterrence against Israel largely rests with Hezbollah’s asymmetric capabilities—rockets, drones, fortified positions, and experience from Syria. While this may impose costs on Israel, it also risks catastrophic damage to Lebanese infrastructure and civilians, especially given Lebanon’s ongoing economic collapse.
⸻
Possible outcomes
1. Limited strikes: Targeted Israeli operations against Hezbollah infrastructure, aiming to avoid full-scale war.
2. Escalation: Rapid tit-for-tat leading to a broader conflict across Lebanon, with severe civilian impact.
3. Regional spillover: Activation of allied fronts or maritime disruptions, increasing global risk.
⸻
Repercussions for Israel and the US
• For Israel: Military gains could be offset by sustained rocket fire, economic disruption, and international pressure over civilian harm.
• For the US (Trump administration): A perceived “green light” risks diplomatic backlash, strains with Arab partners, and complicates de-escalation efforts—especially if the conflict widens or humanitarian costs soar.
Bottom line: Any major Israel–Lebanon war would be devastating for Lebanon, costly for Israel, and strategically risky for Washington. De-escalation and enforcement of existing border arrangements remain the least damaging path, though current signals suggest a dangerously narrow margin for error.
