|
Joe Macaron All indications suggest that Israel and Hezbollah are preparing for a war of attrition. While the current round of conflict – ongoing since March 2 – differs in context from the 2024 war, its structural parameters remain largely unchanged. Both actors have used the period following the November 2024 ceasefire to prepare new tactics that are now being deployed. What is emerging is not a decisive confrontation, but a gradual escalation shaped by operational constraints and adaptation. This piece examines Israel’s military objectives in South Lebanon, Hezbollah’s evolving response, and the feasibility of imposing a buffer zone up to the Litani River. Israel has not articulated a unified and coherent position regarding a buffer zone. A gap persists between political rhetoric and military framing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emphasized the need to expand the “security belt” to prevent infiltration and reduce anti-tank attacks. Defense Minister Israel Katz has explicitly referred to a “security zone up to the Litani” while far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has gone further, suggesting that the river “must be our new border with the state of Lebanon.” By contrast, the Israeli military has framed operation more cautiously, describing it as efforts to establish a “forward defense line.” This language reflects an incremental approach: limited operations that may expand over time with no formal declaration of occupation. Notably, Israel has avoided defining the geographic scope and timeline of such a buffer zone. Despite this ambiguity, Israeli actions point to preparatory measures typically associated with ground invasion, which includes large-scale displacement, infrastructure targeting, and isolation of the battlefield. Evacuation orders have extended as far as the Zahrani River and western Bekaa valley, significantly beyond the immediate security zone, while key bridges linking south to north Litani have been targeted to disrupt logistical flows. This strategy aims to isolate Hezbollah operationally by severing supply lines and limiting mobility in an attempt to isolate fighters in battleground towns like Bint Jbeil and Khiam. However, it rests on assumptions that may not fully reflect Hezbollah’s operational model. The armed group relies heavily on survival stockpile supplies, decentralized logistics, and small-unit mobility rather than continuous resupply as well as mobile launching sites, underground storage facilities, and tunnels. Hence, while Israeli actions may complicate large-scale coordination, they are unlikely to fully disrupt Hezbollah’s operational continuity. Meanwhile, Hezbollah does not appear to be operating under a clearly articulated overarching strategy, but rather through adaptive responses to Israeli moves to increase the cost of any ground incursion. For the first time, Israel is engaging in a confrontation south of the Litani River without visibility and a clear assessment of Hezbollah’s capabilities. Moreover, Israel never before simultaneously faced the Iranian regime and Hezbollah, which stretches its resources and air capabilities. In return, Hezbollah is also uncertain about Israeli intentions and points of incursion. The ambiguity in Israeli statements might be an intentional tactic. On March 30, Netanyahu said that “instead of them surprising us, we are surprising them. We are the ones taking action, we are the ones attacking, we are the ones taking the initiative, and we are deep within their territory.” Three core elements define Hezbollah’s current posture. First, a shift toward decentralized guerrilla warfare compared to previous rounds of conflict since 2006. It is less focused on holding territory and more on mobility through small, mobile units capable of launching attacks and withdrawing rapidly to minimize exposure. Second, sustained missile launches remain their primary tool of pressure. Its operational reach spans three ranges: border areas (0-10 km), northern Israel (up to 40 km, including Haifa), and intermittent strikes deeper into central Israel, including Tel Aviv. Although Israeli defense systems intercept a large proportion of these missiles, the cumulative effect of sustained fire continues to impose economic and psychological costs on Israel, even if not yet strategically decisive. Third, logistical resilience as Hezbollah has spent months reinforcing an underground network of short or medium-length tunnels that connect storage points and launch sites; hidden locations for ammunition, command, and food supplies to reduce reliance on visible supply chain; and small-scale scattered transport that are harder to detect. The terrain in South Lebanon – hills, valleys and light forests cover – further support concealment and mobility. Communication has also become more covert following previous Israeli intelligence penetration. Hezbollah is in survival mode to maintain operational continuity under sustained attack.  A war shaped by maneuver, not breakthrough Israeli ground activity so far reflects a cautious and indirect approach. Rather than pursuing large-scale frontal assaults in traditional strongholds such as Bint Jbeil or Khiam, Israeli forces have experimented with flanking maneuvers and limited incursions. Hezbollah has not always resisted these advances directly, which may reflect a tactic of allowing limited penetration before targeting exposed forces. The objective appears twofold: to encircle and isolate Hezbollah units in key border areas, and to probe potential routes toward the Litani River. Advances along less conventional axes – including rugged terrain and peripheral routes – suggest an effort to avoid costly urban engagements while testing Hezbollah’s defensive responses. For both sides, the battle is less about territorial control and more about who controls strategic geographic points, such as the Qantara–Taybeh–Deir Siryan axis. One notable development is the Israeli incursion from the Syrian side near Mount Hermon toward Jabal Rus, the Shebaa Farms area, opening a new axis of pressure. This expands the geographic scope of the conflict and introduces new operational dynamics, including potential implications for supply routes linking southern Lebanon to the Bekaa. However, these maneuvers have not yet fundamentally altered the balance on the ground. The conflict remains fragmented, with localized engagements rather than decisive breakthroughs. Israel prefers to minimize its casualties and wear down Hezbollah by attacking on multiple fronts. The geography of southern Lebanon continues to impose clear operational constraints, dividing the battlefield into three main sectors. The western sector is more exposed and vulnerable to air strikes, offering limited advantages for Hezbollah given the difficulty to hide, while Israel benefits from naval support. The central sector – comprising rural terrain, dense villages, and complex topography – remains Hezbollah’s stronghold and the most challenging environment for Israeli ground forces. It is well-suited for ambushes and attrition warfare. It is also one of the main advanced platforms to launch short- and medium-range missiles because of its proximity to Israel. It also has the depth of Wadi al-Hujayr as support for hiding, movement, and launch support. The eastern sector, closer to the Litani and the Bekaa, is more open and allows for greater maneuverability, but also exposes advancing forces to counterattacks, and this is where the heaviest fighting happens. Key battlegrounds such as Khiam, Marjayoun, and Bint Jbeil remain central to the conflict. Khiam is the gateway to the Bekaa, and it connects the south to inland Lebanon. The Marjayoun–Kafr Kila-Taybeh axis is also another major battle, as Kafr Kila directly faces the Israeli settlement of Metula; it also has the interior route that makes it an important logistics hub, where it is possible to connect with Hasbaya and the Bekaa. Control over these areas is less about territorial dominance than maintaining or disrupting logistical and operational networks. Can a buffer zone be imposed? From a purely military standpoint, Israel is pursuing a gradual and limited approach rather than a full-scale invasion. Current operations resemble reconnaissance by fire: probing Hezbollah’s defenses while attempting to shape the battlefield. This is not a full-scale invasion but a gradual, mobile incursion. Israel’s approach reflects a preference for sustained bombardment combined with limited advances, rather than a rapid ground offensive. This reduces immediate casualties but prolongs the conflict and reinforces its attritional nature. Even if Israel were to establish control south of the Litani River, the strategic impact would be limited. Such a zone could reduce short-range threats – particularly anti-tank missiles and infiltration risks – but would not eliminate Hezbollah’s ability to launch medium- and long-range rockets from north of the river and the Bekaa Valley. Israel can reduce the threat at a high cost, particularly against border towns, but it does not fully eliminate it. Moreover, imposing and sustaining a buffer zone would require conditions that are difficult to achieve simultaneously: securing key nodes such as Khiam and Marjayoun, breaking through entrenched positions in the central sector, controlling terrain such as Wadi al-Hujair to limit movement, maintaining a permanent ground presence, and enduring sustained attrition, including ambushes and rocket fire. A buffer zone cannot be imposed through air power alone; it requires continuous ground control, even if only partial. Israel’s current approach – combining air superiority with limited ground presence – may shape the battlefield but is not sufficient to impose a durable new reality south of the Litani River. Israel remains tactically superior, with air and intelligence dominance. Hezbollah, however, continues to operate through resilience, decentralization, and sustained fire. As long as it does not collapse and maintains operational continuity, it can complicate any attempt to impose a stable security zone. The conflict is therefore less about territorial control than about the capacity to endure prolonged pressure. In this sense, the war is not designed to be won quickly. It is a contest of endurance, where strategic outcomes will depend less on battlefield breakthroughs than on which side can sustain the costs of a protracted confrontation. About the Author
Joe Macaron is a researcher on international relations and geopolitical analyst focused on the Middle East and US foreign policy. He holds a PhD in Politics and International Studies from the University of Bath in the United Kingdom. Comments are closed.
|