Occupied Jerusalem- Israeli analysts and military officials unanimously agreed that Secretary-General LLebanese Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah carries veiled threatening messages to Israel, without giving the green light to launch a comprehensive war.
They believe that Nasrallah adopted an approach of “evasion and deception” regarding the course of the war and its developments, while he seemed more ambiguous regarding the scenario of a multi-front war, as he kept all options open.
Analyzes and assessments agreed on the need to be wary of Hezbollah, which has not said its final word. They agreed that the content of Hassan Nasrallah’s speech keeps the Lebanon front burning, and also continues to provoke the Israeli army. These are the contents that confuse Israel’s calculations and mix the cards for the ongoing war.
The Israeli analyzes warned against the belief that Hezbollah had abandoned Hamas by not opening a wide front in Lebanon, as well as against the rhetoric that promoted that Israeli deterrence seemed to be effective on the Lebanese front. The analyzes also did not rule out the possibility of Hezbollah adopting the element of surprise, and directing a blow to the Israeli depth.
In this context, the former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Service, Amos Yadlin, believes that… Hassan Nasrallah “He evades and adopts a misleading and ambiguous approach” regarding the position of Hezbollah and Iran, regarding what happened on the seventh of last October, and regarding the course of the battle and developments in the war on the front with Lebanon.
Yadlin explained that the ambiguity in Nasrallah’s speech kept all possibilities open, and also kept the tension on the front with Lebanon, indicating that Hezbollah avoids risking a comprehensive war, and that Israeli deterrence is very strong, but Hassan Nasrallah did not hesitate to threaten Israel and bomb deep into the cities. Israel, launching a pre-emptive strike.
From the point of view of the Israeli military official, Nasrallah cannot surprise the Israeli army stationed on the border, “and he does not want to receive the same blow that Hamas received,” and he is trying to warn of a preemptive strike that might ignite a regional war, as he described it.
Conduct of war
According to Major General Yisrael Ziv, a reserve in the Israeli occupation army, Nasrallah “made clear why he does not intend to sacrifice Beirut, but rather to continue to evade and mislead everything related to the course of the war and future possibilities.”
Ziv warned that Nasrallah’s speech carried a message that Hezbollah would maintain escalation and tension using a “quiet fuse” that it controls, and most importantly, it would continue to exhaust Israel while maintaining the element of surprise, which would create a state of confusion on the Israeli side.
Ziv believes that Nasrallah, who kept all possibilities open, should be very worried about Israel, stressing that it is not possible to be reassured and return “Israeli civilians” to the border areas, except after removing Hezbollah members from southern Lebanon, and canceling threats of a possible ground incursion by the party’s fighters. In Upper Galilee.
In reading Nasrallah’s speech in the intelligence context, the former head of the Mossad’s intelligence department, Zohar Valti, believes that there is a tendency to give importance to the credibility of Nasrallah, “who in his speech is waging a psychological war against Israel, and even against America, and everyone who supports Israel in the East.” “Middle.”
In an interview with Hebrew Channel 12, Valti indicated that Nasrallah did not abandon Hamas or Gaza, as some Israelis believe. He is acting out of responsibility towards Lebanon, and does not want to repeat the scenario of the 2006 war, especially since he sees the strategic influence of the United States and its army in the war on Gaza, where he holds the Americans and Israel responsible for what is happening there.
The former intelligence department official says that Nasrallah “returns to the concept of spider webs, as he makes it clear that Israel will not have existential continuity, and will not survive without the Americans,” noting that these statements by Nasrallah were not made by chance, but rather in conjunction with the visit of the US Secretary of State. Anthony Blinken to Israel.
The Arab affairs analyst in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Smadar Peri, chose to drive wedges between Hamas and Hezbollah, as she claimed that Nasrallah’s speech was disappointing to the Hamas movement, as he did not join the war on a large scale on the Lebanese front.
In her analysis, Perry claimed that Nasrallah has proven – at least through statements – that he avoids attacking Israel by force; Because it is clear to him that Israel will attack Beirut and destroy it as it did in Gaza.
“It was clear that Nasrallah would not give his party the green light to enter into an all-out war,” Perry says. He reviewed the difficult economic, political and social situation in Israel, as well as the unstable psychological state of its citizens, and repeatedly explained why Hezbollah should not enter into an all-out war.
In assessing the position of Michael Milstein, head of the Arab World Department at the “Institute for Policy and Strategy” at Reichmann University, in Herzliya, Israel, he stressed that Nasrallah was cautious in his speech and messages, but “it is advisable for the Israelis to beware of optimism from the announced statement, that Hezbollah is not interested in An all-out war, or that Israeli deterrence has returned to the front with Lebanon.”
Milstein added that Nasrallah did not deliver his speech “in virtue of his role as Secretary-General of Hezbollah only, but rather as a representative of the entire Middle Eastern resistance camp led by Iran. At the heart of what he said was the achievement for Hamas and the Palestinian resistance, and the success of this camp in consolidating its position in the Middle East.”
But for Israel, “the cautious content of the speech should not obscure any sense of optimism. Unlike ordinary listeners, it is appropriate that all decision-makers and security officials refrain from understanding the speech as weak and appeasement, that Hezbollah is deterred and that Nasrallah has his own concerns and inhibitions about waging an all-out war.” On Israel,” Milstein says.
He recalled that last October 7 taught Israel a painful lesson, when it downplayed Hamas’ intentions and ruled out the scenario of a surprise attack from Gaza.
The analyst believes that Nasrallah’s speech and its content are “strategic deception,” and says, “It is necessary to focus on Nasrallah’s clarification that his reactions will be derived from the nature of the battle in Gaza, and if this is accompanied by serious damage to Hamas, primarily the liquidation of its senior officials, which is what “It may lead to a large-scale escalation on the front with Lebanon.”
The post first appeared on www.aljazeera.net