The trajectory of the “Northern Arrow”

Shortly after Israel’s “Operation Iron Sword” to defeat Hamas in the Gaza Strip was put on hold to pave the way for negotiations between the two sides, the Jewish state rushed to open a “second front” – this time against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The large-scale “Northern Arrow” operation, positioned by the General Staff of the Israeli Armed Forces as “defensive,” aims to create a security buffer zone in the country’s northern border area and push Hezbollah units deep into Lebanese territory, beyond the Litani River.

The current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is perhaps one of the largest in the past two decades. In less than three days, the IDF has struck at least 1,500 targets in southern Lebanon - more than 550 people, including 50 children, have been victims of the attacks. Panic and the death toll from bombings are increased by the fact that the raids are carried out in waves, with increasingly short intervals between them. This complicates the evacuation of civilians, causing an already serious humanitarian crisis in the Middle East. Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu previously pledged to open humanitarian corridors to evacuate people from the border area and “not become a human shield for pro-Iranian forces”.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah appears to have been weakened by the September 17-18 explosions of pagers, walkie-talkies and electronic devices. The intensity of the attacks was lower (compared to Israel), largely playing on the fears of people in Israel’s “rear areas”.

Immediately after the first wave of attacks, the Hezbollah leadership lifted restrictions on deep strikes into Israeli territory, expanding the range of attacks to 120 kilometers - almost doubling it. As a result, not only the border cities of Safed and Acre, which were accustomed to Hezbollah air strikes from Lebanon, but also Haifa, Nazareth, and even Tel Aviv.

Hezbollah leaders have also hinted that their war against Israel will no longer be “limited to the air.” Rocket and drone attacks on Israeli infrastructure could be supplemented by raids by the Radwan Force, Hezbollah’s elite commando unit in northern Israel, as well as a wave of protests in the West Bank, where discontent with Israeli policies continues to grow.

The international community is closely following the complex developments on the Israel-Lebanon border. The “world referees” represented by the United Nations and other international platforms are expressing concern about the escalation, but have yet to turn words into actions.

The United States is perhaps the country that feels the most awkward about what is happening in the Middle East. After Israel launched Operation Northern Arrow, the United States, in its “allied duty,” quickly deployed additional forces to the region and expressed its readiness to intervene in the conflict if the security of its allies is threatened. However, further escalation of the conflict is not in the interest of the White House, which has not yet decided on the red line for direct military intervention. The Biden administration has been trying to minimize its military presence in the East as much as possible over the past years, not wanting to take on the burden of military conflicts in the Middle East. Moreover, moving the confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah to a new, “hotter” stage will hinder the “Biden peace plan” in the Gaza Strip. With fighting in the north, neither side is willing to negotiate in depth, putting an end to the White House's efforts to bring home hostages held by Hamas (including American citizens) in the final stages of the presidential race.

The current tensions in the Middle East could have long-term consequences for US foreign policy, as neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have figured out how to build a dialogue with their ally Israel without damaging their party’s ratings. For this reason, the US will most likely try to avoid direct involvement in the conflict, making diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation.

Both Russia and China have warned that the risk of an Israeli-Lebanese war is high and that the situation could escalate into a Middle East conflict, exacerbating the regional humanitarian crisis. China has been particularly strident in its criticism of military actions against civilians and has clearly expressed its support for Lebanon. However, it is clear that neither Beijing nor Moscow have plans to intervene in resolving the conflict as a mediator, leaving the United States as the most likely country to succeed in restoring regional balance.

Countries in the region find themselves in an ambiguous position, especially those that are trying to normalize relations with Israel, such as the UAE or Bahrain. Despite the fact that there are no military agreements between these countries and Israel, the Jewish state can use the “card” of economic cooperation and high-tech development to bargain and seek support from the Persian Gulf countries. However, the above bargaining scenario is unlikely because Israel is aware that creating conflicts and disagreements with Arab countries is very risky.

Perhaps the most concerning issue today is the policy of Iran, Hezbollah’s main ally in Lebanon and Israel’s biggest regional rival. The escalation on the Lebanese-Israeli border has put Tehran in a difficult position. On the one hand, the opportunity has arisen to attack Israel with a united front (as the most militant part of the “Axis of Resistance” insists) and to take retaliatory military action not only for Operation Northern Arrow, but also for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and other Israeli attacks on the forces of the Iranian-led “Axis of Resistance.” On the other hand, direct intervention in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict would damage the foreign policy of the new administration of President Masoud Pezeshkian. In particular, it would rule out the possibility of dialogue between Iran and Western countries, otherwise President Masoud Pezeshkian's "economic breakthrough" program would collapse.

Judging by recent events, both Israel and Hezbollah believe that they can win the conflict if they follow the formula of “de-escalation through escalation.” Each side tries to “heat up” the situation, raising the level of escalation so that the other feels pressure, but does not consider it an existential threat and jump out of the “cauldron” early. The problem is that the “cauldron” that Israel and Hezbollah alternately heat up is not limited to the Israel-Lebanon border, but covers the entire Middle East. And in the current state of escalation, not only the direct participants, but also outside observers are at risk of being “cooked.”