Yedioth Ahronoth: Assessment regarding Israeli army invading Lebanon

As military tensions between Hezbollah and Israel escalate, Israeli estimates suggest that they are currently leaning toward the option of limited defensive operations inside Lebanese territory, rather than carrying out a full-scale ground invasion.

This is due to concerns about the high military and humanitarian cost of such a scenario.

According to Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, this trend comes at a time when Hezbollah elements are increasingly active near the border.

In return, the group retains multiple offensive options, including rocket bombardment, drones, infiltration, and raids, making any large-scale ground operation risky.

Israeli assessments suggest that the reluctance to launch a large-scale ground offensive in southern Lebanon is due to a careful balance between potential gains and losses.

In recent confrontations, Hezbollah has demonstrated a clear ability to conduct battles with tactical skill, leading the IDF to favor limited operations rather than an all-out incursion.

In this context, the scenario of a so-called tactical incursion emerges, in which Israeli forces may advance short distances inside southern Lebanon to take control of high positions or border villages with the aim of using them as forward points of fire.

But this option also carries significant risks, as advancing forces could be subjected to constant missile and sniper attacks, which could turn them into fixed targets and lead to a daily war of attrition without significant change in the balance of power.

The other option is a large-scale ground operation that could extend as far as the Litani River or even further, with the aim of creating a buffer zone free of Hezbollah forces and destroying its military infrastructure in border villages.

While this scenario could give Israel strategic gains such as moving rocket platforms away from its borders and weakening the group’s leadership capabilities, its cost could be too high.

Battles in cities and mountains could lead to significant casualties, as well as the possibility of a protracted war that could last for months and possibly open new fronts in the region.

Based on these data, analysts believe that the closest option is the continuation of airstrikes and precision assassinations, in addition to limited and frequent incursions into Lebanese territory.

The aim is to gradually reduce the party’s capabilities without engaging in an all-out ground confrontation.

This approach relies on weakening Hezbollah economically and militarily while minimizing risks to ground forces, while anticipating potential regional developments such as an escalating confrontation with Iran or increased international pressure.

Several factors make the Israeli military leadership reluctant to carry out a large-scale ground offensive.

The first is the geographical nature of southern Lebanon, which is characterized by mountains, valleys and close villages, and is suitable for guerrilla warfare and ambushes.

Second, recent confrontations have shown a marked development in Hezbollah’s military capabilities, including the widespread deployment of anti-armor missiles and the use of drones, as well as the combat experience that its fighters have gained over the past years.

Third, Israel faces security challenges on several fronts at the same time, including threats associated with Iran, the Lebanese front, and the potential for escalation in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and even Yemen, prompting it to deploy its forces cautiously and avoid risking a major ground operation.

On the other hand, Hezbollah believes that any Israeli ground advance could give it an opportunity to turn Israeli military superiority into a burden on the ground.

Hezbollah’s defensive philosophy is based on slowing the advance of attacking forces and raising the cost of operations on them, rather than trying to prevent an incursion entirely.

This strategy is based on the use of close-range ambushes and anti-tank missiles, as well as fighting inside villages and exploiting the mountainous terrain, tunnel network and weapons depots.

Hezbollah also relies on drones to reconnoiter and strike concentrations of soldiers, as well as maintain a rocket arsenal capable of targeting Israeli depth and maintain pressure on the home front.

In the event of a limited ground incursion, Hezbollah may seek to allow Israeli forces to advance short distances and then attack supply lines and carry out ambushes and detour attacks to confuse the field command.

Any Israeli advance could thus become an increasing military, political, and psychological burden, as part of a strategy based primarily on attrition of the adversary and prolonging the conflict.

To date, Israel hasn’t made its final decision on the ground operation, while a large-scale incursion would give it military gains, its high cost makes it a risky option.

On the other hand, Hezbollah is betting on turning any ground confrontation into a long and costly battle that relies heavily on attrition and psychological and media pressure.