Lebanon is witnessing unprecedented Israeli escalation, with over 200 people killed in intensive airstrikes, raising questions about the lack of direct Iranian support. Military expert Nidal Abu Zaid emphasizes that this shift reflects a separation of fronts between Iran and Lebanon.
Colonel Nidal Abu Zaid rejected the justifications provided by Tehran for its lack of support for Lebanon after it faced fierce attacks from the Israeli occupation, which resulted in more than 1200 casualties, including dead and wounded. He pointed out that the claim of a coordination failure between Iran and the Lebanese front due to communication disruptions is "incorrect."
Details of the Incident
Israel has launched over 100 airstrikes on extensive areas in Lebanon, resulting in more than 200 deaths and around 1000 injuries, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health. These strikes come despite Tehran and Islamabad confirming that a two-week ceasefire agreement between Washington and Tehran, mediated by Pakistan, includes a clause regarding halting Israeli assaults on Lebanon.
Abu Zaid added that Israeli bombardment has seen a notable escalation following the ceasefire agreement, extending to sovereign squares that were not previously targeted, such as Marissa and Ain al-Tineh, where official headquarters and Lebanese state institutions are located. He explained that Israel's use of artificial intelligence systems in attacks, such as the Lavender system, has expanded the margin of casualties, meaning that targeting a single individual could lead to around 20 casualties within the target area.
Background & Context
As Israeli airstrikes continue, Israeli media reported that Tel Aviv has reached understandings with Washington to separate the fronts of Lebanon and Iran. Abu Zaid noted that what is happening reflects a shift in the equation, as the United States has succeeded in separating the Lebanese front from the Iranian one, allowing Israel to focus solely on Lebanon.
This shift reinforces what Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced, confirming that Israel "insisted on separating the war with Iran from the fighting in Lebanon," while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to impose a "buffer zone" 10 kilometers deep. This situation reflects a transition of the conflict from a cost distribution model through allies to an attempt to impose it directly on Iran.
Impact & Consequences
The absence of any clear reaction from Tehran regarding the situation in Lebanon and its non-involvement in the escalation strengthens the hypothesis of separation between the fronts. Current data indicates a desire from both the United States and Iran to move towards negotiations, as Tehran announced the opening of the Strait of Hormuz at 91%, while Washington confirms it is fully open, reflecting a mutual inclination towards de-escalation.
Abu Zaid added that both sides are approaching a formula for an agreement, but the chances of its success remain in a "gray area." This situation could contribute to reshaping regional alliances and affect the overall stability of the region.
Regional Significance
Concerns are growing that the Israeli escalation in Lebanon could have wider repercussions on the region, as the Houthi group may resort to unifying fronts and launching strikes against Israel in retaliation for the attacks on Lebanon. This could complicate the conflict further and enhance instability in the region.
In conclusion, the situation in Lebanon remains a focal point for the world, where regional and international interests intertwine, making it difficult to predict the trajectories of future events.