Connect with us

RSS

Israel Is Not Defeating Hezbollah in Lebanon – It’s Only Laying the Groundwork for the Next War

Smoke billows over Khiam, amid ongoing hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, as pictured from Marjayoun, near the border with Israel, Oct. 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Karamallah Daher

Following the unexpected success of the series of blows inflicted by Israel on Hezbollah’s high command in August and September, the IDF began a ground operation in Lebanon.

The confusion and embarrassment that gripped Hezbollah undoubtedly damaged not only its strategic and systemic command capabilities, but also the functioning of its operational formations. The organization’s rate of rocket launches in late September was much lower than expected. More importantly, the quality of those launches — the ability to concentrate barrages of complex rockets and missiles to overcome Israeli air defenses, and the ability to locate and accurately hit targets in Israel — was significantly diminished.

Precisely in light of the enemy’s disequilibrium, the modest goals of the “Northern Arrows” operation stand out. From everything that has been said and published, the operation is intended to return the residents of the north to their homes through the cleansing of the first line of Lebanese villages from Radwan Force attack-supporting infrastructure.

This relatively modest plan suits the Israeli government’s political goals as well as the Americans’ desire to limit the war. A limited plan may entail limited risks in principle, but from a narrow military point of view, this particular plan is based on simplistic work assumptions and entails great operational risks. A clear definition of the work assumptions implicit in the plan will make it possible to critically assess whether the situation has changed and whether the plan should accordingly be changed.

According to the IDF, a force numbering about two divisions (accurate to early October) entered the strip of Lebanese villages very close to the Israeli border with the aim of destroying the Radwan infrastructure there. In other words:

  • The IDF launched an operation against infrastructure, not against an enemy.
  • As long as the enemy allows it, the IDF will prefer to carry out the mission without combat confrontation.

Although Hezbollah’s top command level was neutralized and a significant part of its rocket and missile arrays destroyed, the organization’s ground army in southern Lebanon was only slightly damaged. The IDF’s announcements about the operation’s limited objectives were intended for Israeli and American ears, but also signaled the enemy. The implied message was this: “If you refrain from opposing IDF forces in the limited operation, its expansion will be avoided. This will allow Hezbollah’s southern units to survive.”

If that was indeed the message, then it is clear that Israel’s strategic goal is to end the war with an international agreement after the destruction of Hezbollah’s infrastructure on the border line.

From a purely military point of view, the Northern Command’s operational concept here is problematic. The deployment of the IDF on a very thin strip, in the face of a Hezbollah army that maintains significant military strength, including anti-tank and mortar capabilities, raids and ambushes, exposes the brigades to dangerous enemy initiatives. At least one battle so far, in which almost 50 fighters of the Egoz battalion’s combat team were injured, illustrated this risk, and since early October IDF casualties have grown significantly.

The IDF is trying to overcome this weakness by securing the forces with concentrated air effort and firepower. But from a military standpoint, it would have been more correct to capture the Hezbollah army in southern Lebanon through rapid divisional moves deep into the south and encircle the enemy based on the river lines (the Litani, Zaharni or Avali).

Defeating an enemy in battle is usually based on the principle of reducing friction with the hard shell and then quickly and aggressively surrounding and squeezing it. In this instance, the encirclement of Hezbollah’s military force and threat to destroy it would offer a better chance, if not a promise, of a) continuing to deny the enemy a return to operational equilibrium and b) bringing about the disintegration of the tactical arrays in the south in the same way the command arrays collapsed in Beirut.

On the micro-tactical level, quick and decisive divisional moves are supposed to reduce the main threat to IDF forces: advanced anti-tank missiles. In general, fast combat movement makes it more difficult for the defender and reduces his ambush and shooting opportunities. More concretely, as the days pass from the beeper blasts and the broad Air Force attacks on the bank of targets in the south, the more likely it is that the Hezbollah units will recover and prepare better for battle.

Despite the inherent risks, the strategy of clearing a narrow buffer strip and ending the war in the north with an agreement is a legitimate choice. Hezbollah’s southern army is a significant military threat capable of exacting a heavy price from the IDF. Hezbollah knows full well that after a year of fighting in Gaza, the IDF is not the fresh, capable army, armed to the teeth and furious, that it was at the beginning of the war. It is very possible that the enemy will cooperate with the plan and take the chance of preserving its power over an attempt to restore its lost dignity. It is also possible that that is Iran’s directive.

Either way, the assumptions underlying the current plan must be defined and their validity examined. One must also prepare for an immediate change of the plan in the north if it turns out that the enemy has chosen not to cooperate. In fact, just preparing the broader ground move may have a restraining effect on Hezbollah’s ground forces in the south.

We must define the situation clearly:

  1. The IDF went into Lebanon to fight the enemy’s infrastructure, not the enemy itself.
  2. Under these circumstances, combat contact will usually be initiated by the enemy.
  3. The current move is not optimal in terms of securing IDF forces. Israel is allowing Hezbollah’s defense and attack units, which are mostly complete, to watch the IDF’s moves and initiate action accordingly.
  4. De-equilibrium is, by definition, a temporary matter. As time passes, the impact of the inflicted blows weakens and operational cohesion returns. Restoring self-respect in the face of operational opportunities in the field may turn out to be a growing logic among the enemy forces in the south.
  5. Choosing a strategy that does not seek Hezbollah’s military defeat will inevitably leave the organization a military force in Lebanon.

If the risks inherent in points 1-4 materialize in several consecutive events, then the option of encirclement and ground decision of the Hezbollah army in the south should be realized quickly. It must be prepared for, both as an operational response and as a reserved threat to the enemy.

The fifth point concerns Israel’s strategy. At the moment, the strategy strives for the demobilization of South Lebanon not by force but by some kind of political agreement, apparently in the spirit of 1701 (the UN Security Council resolution that ended the Second Lebanon War). As we have bitter experience of the unreliability of foreign demobilization mechanisms, the true meaning of Israel’s strategy is that the current Lebanon War is not an end to the conflict with Hezbollah but simply a prelude to the next war.

Again, this is not necessarily a wrong strategy. Despite the achievements of the strikes in the summer, Hezbollah is not defeated, and its ground units in the south are certainly still capable of battle. Israel, meanwhile, is fighting in seven arenas. Also, to a significant degree, the prolongation of the war in Lebanon serves Hamas in Gaza, where the pressure has been eased. It is also difficult to see a clear ending mechanism for the direct war that has started between Iran and Israel. Each strategy has advantages and disadvantages, and the important thing is to understand them.

The current strategy strives to shorten the long war we have fallen into. The thinking underlying this strategy is that the current Lebanon war will not be the last. As ever, Hezbollah will prepare for the next war while learning from its failures in the current round. In the future, Israel will not be able to assume that a series of secret operations will provide it with the same benefits. It is also possible that the bank of targets will not be replenished at the same rate in light of information security lessons the enemy is now learning.

The current war is being waged while counter-terrorism tactics, such as eliminating senior commanders, are yielding surprising systemic achievements. But even with these successes, Israel is choosing not to take advantage of a rare opportunity to overwhelm Hezbollah’s army in the south. This choice does not show much self-confidence in the purely military field.

If the IDF is to defeat Hezbollah’s future military power in the south and learn lessons from the current war, it will have to be not only more determined but also more adaptable. The current Israeli caution stems, at least in part, from an understanding that on the military level, our forces are dangerously vulnerable to enemy capabilities and not effective enough to cleanse the south without sinking into an eternal guerilla war.

The current strategy may be successful. It is possible that we will return the residents of the north and reach an agreement. But such a success, should it occur, will mark not only the operational achievement of the covert and air strikes that landed on the enemy but also their limitations.

No one will dismantle Hezbollah in Lebanon for us. And if a significant part of its power is preserved, its deterrence of Israel will improve, and Israel will not be able to enforce demilitarization by force. Hezbollah’s survival in defeat will simply turn over the hourglass for the next clash with a smarter enemy that is eager to restore its honor.

The current war marks, therefore, the opening of the race between the parties to prepare for the next war. This may be the decisive conflict not only in the north, but also for the future of the axis. The IDF must develop a clear and distinct military decision-making capacity — a military capacity, not just another list of methods of fighting terrorism.

 Brig. Gen. (res.) Eran Ortal recently retired from military service as commander of the Dado Center for Multidisciplinary Military Thinking. His book The Battle Before the War (MOD 2022, in Hebrew) dealt with the IDF’s need to change, innovate and renew a decisive war approach. His next book, Renewal – The October 7th War and Israel’s Defense Strategy, is about to be published by Levin Publications. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post Israel Is Not Defeating Hezbollah in Lebanon – It’s Only Laying the Groundwork for the Next War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

New York Democrats Hesitate to Endorse Far-Left Zohran Mamdani Following Stunning NYC Primary Victory

Zohran Mamdani Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

Multiple moderate New York Democrats are hesitating to endorse Zohran Mamdani following his victory Tuesday in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, citing concerns over his alleged antisemitism and socialist policies. 

Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblyman and proud democratic socialist, toppled former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a lopsided first‑round win in the Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4%.

Voters in New York City rank their choices in order of their preference. While Mamdani declared victory and Cuomo conceded defeat, the race’s ultimate outcome will technically be decided when every vote is tallied, taking into account the ranked choice count. Mamdani’s victory is all but assured.

Some observers have speculated that Mamdani’s win over an older, high-profile Democrat signifies growing frustration with the party’s status quo and represents a generational change

US Rep. Laura Gillen (D-NY), a freshman lawmaker representing a swing-district in Nassau County, slammed Mamdani for his far-left economic agenda and repeated “antisemitism.”

“Socialist Zohran Mamdani is too extreme to lead New York City. His entire campaign has been built on unachievable promises and higher taxes,” Gillen said in a statement. “Beyond that, Mr. Mamdani has called to defund the police and has demonstrated a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments which stoke hate at a time when antisemitism is skyrocketing.”

Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), a moderate lawmaker representing the Empire State’s 3rd district, also declined to endorse Mamdani, citing “serious concerns.”

“I had serious concerns about Assemblyman Mamdani before yesterday, and that is one of the reasons I endorsed his opponent. Those concerns remain,” Suozzi posted on X.

High-profile Democratic leaders in New York such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have congratulated and complemented Mamdani, but have not yet issued an explicit endorsement. Each lawmaker has indicated interest in meeting with the presumptive Democratic mayoral nominee in New York City to hold discussions prior to making a decision on a formal endorsement. 

The progressive representative in the New York State Assembly has also sparked outrage after engaging in a series of provocative actions, such as appearing on the podcast of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas influencer Hasan Piker and vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.

During an event hosted by the UJA-Federation of New York last month, Mamdani also declined to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

“I believe that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all,” Mamdani said in a carefully worded response when asked, sidestepping the issue of Israel’s existence specifically as a “Jewish state” and seemingly suggesting Israeli citizens do not enjoy equal rights.

Then during a New York City Democratic mayoral debate, he once again refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, sparking immediate backlash among the other candidates. 

In 2023, while speaking at a Democratic Socialists of America convention in New York, Mamdani encouraged the audience to applaud for Palestinian American community activist Khader El-Yateem, saying “If you don’t clap for El-Yateem, you’re a Zionist.”

During that same speech, Mamdani touted his longstanding anti-Israel activism.

“I was somebody who began my journey in organizing and in politics by co-founding my school’s first Students for Justice in Palestine. The struggle for Palestinian liberation was at the core of my politics and continues to be,” Mamdani said.

Students for Justice in Palestine has been at the forefront of the wave of pro-Hamas demonstrations that have engulfed college campuses during the Gaza war.

Jewish leaders in New York, the broader US, and even abroad have expressed alarm over Mamdani’s primary victory, with many accusing him of antisemitism and noting he has made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his political career.

The post New York Democrats Hesitate to Endorse Far-Left Zohran Mamdani Following Stunning NYC Primary Victory first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Sweden Democrats Apologize for Past Nazi Links, Antisemitism as Election Nears

Mattias Karlsson, Sweden Democrats politicians, addresses party members after election in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 9, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Ints Kalnins

The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats apologized on Thursday for the party’s past Nazi links and antisemitism, part of efforts to present a more moderate, mainstream image to voters ahead of a national election next year.

The Sweden Democrats were presenting the results of a specially commissioned study that found Nazi and antisemitic views to have been common at party functions and in its printed materials in the 1980s and 1990s.

“That there have been clear expressions of antisemitism and support for National Socialist ideas in my party’s history I think is disgusting and reprehensible,” Mattias Karlsson, a member of parliament often described as the party’s chief ideologist, told a news conference.

“I would like to reiterate the party’s apology, above all to Swedish citizens of Jewish descent who may have felt a strong sense of insecurity and fear for good reasons.”

The commissioning of the study sought to acknowledge and break with a past that has long hindered its cooperation with Sweden‘s mainstream political parties. The Sweden Democrats hope to join a future coalition government after the 2026 election.

The party first entered parliament in 2010 and currently supports Sweden‘s governing right-wing coalition government but has no members in the cabinet.

Tony Gustafsson, the historian hired by the party to write the book, said the party had emerged in the 1980s out of neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations and that it had continued to cooperate with them into the 1990s.

“The collaboration seems to have involved using these groups to help distribute election materials,” Gustafsson said, adding there were strong indications that one such group, the “White Aryan Resistance,” had served as security guards at party gatherings.

Gustafsson said there had been a clear connection to Nazism until 1995, the year that current party leader Jimmie Akesson joined the Sweden Democrats, but that the Sweden Democrats had begun distancing itself from such links thereafter.

The post Sweden Democrats Apologize for Past Nazi Links, Antisemitism as Election Nears first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Supreme Leader, in First Appearance Since Ceasefire, Says Iran Would Strike Back if Attacked

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks in a televised message, after the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, in Tehran, Iran, June 26, 2025. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS

Iran would respond to any future US attack by striking American military bases in the Middle East, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday, in his first televised remarks since a ceasefire was reached between Iran and Israel.

Khamenei, 86, claimed victory after 12 days of war, culminating in an Iranian attack on the largest US base in the region, located in Qatar, after Washington joined the Israeli strikes. No casualties were reported in the Iranian attack, which was coordinated with both US and Qatari authorities beforehand in an apparent effort to show a symbolic display of force without triggering retaliation.

“The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face. It attacked one of the important American bases in the region,” Khamenei said.

As in his last comments, released more than a week ago during the Israeli bombardment, he spoke from an undisclosed indoor location in front of a brown curtain, between an Iranian flag and a portrait of his predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini.

In his pre-recorded remarks, aired on state television, Khamenei promised that Iran would not surrender despite US President Donald Trump’s calls.

“The US President Trump unveiled the truth and made it clear that Americans won’t be satisfied with anything less than surrender… such an event will never happen,” Khamenei said.

“The fact that the Islamic Republic has access to important American centers in the region and can take action against them whenever it deems necessary is not a small incident, it is a major incident, and this incident can be repeated in the future if an attack is made,” he added.

Trump said “sure” on Wednesday when asked if the United States would strike again if Iran rebuilt its nuclear enrichment program.

Tehran has for decades denied accusations by Western leaders that it is seeking nuclear arms.

NO GAIN

Khamenei said the US “gained no achievement” after it attacked Iranian nuclear sites, but that it entered the war to “save” Israel after some of Tehran’s missiles broke through Israel’s multi-layered defense system.

“The US directly entered the war as it felt that if it did not get involved, the Zionist regime [Israel] would be fully destroyed. It entered the war to save it,” he said.

“The US attacked our nuclear facilities, but couldn’t do any important deed … The US president did abnormal showmanship and needed to do so,” he added.

Trump said over the weekend that the US deployment of 30,000-pound bombs had “obliterated” Iran‘s nuclear program. Officials and experts are still probing the extent of the damage.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also declared “a historic victory” on Tuesday, after the fragile ceasefire took effect, saying Israel had achieved its goal of removing Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threat.

Shortly after Khamenei’s speech, Netanyahu posted a message with a picture of himself and Trump holding hands with the message: “We will continue to work together to defeat our common enemies.”

The post Supreme Leader, in First Appearance Since Ceasefire, Says Iran Would Strike Back if Attacked first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News