Israeli assessments of Hezbollah's scenarios for dealing with a potential attack against Iran

Israeli occupation forces continue to escalate their military operations deep inside Lebanese territory, targeting elements they describe as armed and wanted individuals in various areas. These moves come despite approximately eighteen months having passed since the ceasefire agreement came into effect, sending sharp field messages to various Lebanese parties.

Military analysts in the Hebrew media considered that the recent intensification of Israeli attacks, especially in the Sidon and Bekaa Valley regions, represents an abandonment of the previous policy of restraint. Sources indicated that these operations targeted prominent field commanders belonging to both Hezbollah and Hamas movements.

Israeli assessments link this wave of assassinations to potential American preparations for a military strike against Iran. Observers believe that through these operations, the occupation seeks to neutralize immediate threats before any widespread regional conflagration in which Washington might participate.

A state of anxiety prevails within political circles in Beirut regarding the possibility of the occupation carrying out a comprehensive preemptive strike against Hezbollah's military capabilities. These fears are reinforced by indications that any such Israeli move might receive direct support and endorsement from the American administration.

Israeli security agencies are closely monitoring movements within Lebanon to understand the nature of Hezbollah's expected response should a confrontation with Tehran erupt. The lingering question remains about the extent of decision-making independence within the current leadership of the party and its ability to engage in an all-out war.

Hebrew reports indicated that the first option available to Hezbollah is to suffice with media and political support for Iran without engaging in a field confrontation. This scenario is based on previous experiences in which the party chose not to be drawn into a direct clash despite escalating regional tensions.

The second scenario assumes the party's involvement in a limited round of fighting aimed at demonstrating loyalty to the Iranian axis and alleviating pressure on Tehran. However, analysts warn that this option might provoke a violent Israeli response that could develop into a military campaign aimed at destroying the party's infrastructure.

The third and most dangerous option is for Hezbollah to enter into an open and large-scale war against the occupation using its arsenal of missiles and drones. This possibility raises terror within Lebanon, especially with the occupation's threats to directly and destructively target the capital Beirut.

The Lebanese government condemned the repeated Israeli attacks, considering them a violation of national sovereignty and a transgression of existing agreements. At the same time, internal challenges arise concerning the Lebanese army's ability to assert control given the party's continued possession of long-range strategic weapons.

Military analyst Amir Bar Shalom believes that the leadership vacuum left by Hassan Nasrallah's absence continues to affect the decision-making process within the party. He explained that the current leadership, headed by Naim Qassem, may not possess the same margin of maneuver that was previously available for making fateful decisions.

In conclusion, the Lebanese scene remains hostage to rapid developments in the Iranian file, where local calculations intertwine with major regional interests. All parties are preparing for open scenarios that may redraw the map of balances in the region based on the nature of forthcoming military responses.

The Lebanese state will remain vulnerable to any scenario of regional escalation as long as Hezbollah continues to possess long-range missile systems.