The intense Israeli airstrikes that targeted the Bekaa in eastern Lebanon on Thursday evening marked the broadest aerial escalation against the Bekaa since the ceasefire agreement entered into force. This came a week after the killing of eight members of Hezbollah, including a commander, whom Israel said were responsible for launching rockets.
The pace of events does not reflect a clear upward military trajectory, but is instead linked to domestic and regional political calculations, at a moment coinciding with US-Iranian negotiations and the possibility of changes to the rules of engagement, according to experts following the developments.
Fire map... intensity and rapid succession
On Thursday evening, Israeli aircraft carried out eight strikes on the outskirts of Shmustar in the Western Mountain Range. The raids also hit the outskirts of Budai and Harbata. Less than half an hour later, shelling resumed heavily on the outskirts of Budai and the surroundings of Baalbek, amid low-altitude drone activity. The strikes extended to the outskirts of the city of Hermel, while the vicinity of the town of Taminine was also targeted, in addition to another strike on the outskirts of Budai, before new raids were launched on the outskirts of Nabi Sheet.
What stood out was not only the number of strikes, but the speed of their succession and the breadth of the geographic area, suggesting the management of concentrated fire rather than isolated attacks.
Local sources described the raids as “highly explosive,” telling Asharq Al-Awsat that “the tremors were heard in towns far from the strike locations, which caused panic and led some residents to believe that war had effectively begun, especially amid the charged regional atmosphere.”
The Ministry of Public Health announced that the strikes resulted in two deaths, including a Syrian child and a woman, and left 29 people wounded.
A political message
In an analytical reading linking the battlefield to politics, retired Brig. Gen. Naji Malaeb said that targeting the Bekaa in the recent phase was not a tactical detail, but carried clear political indications. He told Asharq Al-Awsat that “the Israeli escalation in Lebanon has two main objectives.
The first is to send a message to those betting on the Lebanese Army’s ability to carry out the task of disarming Hezbollah, as Israel is trying to say it will intervene if it sees that the army has not done what it wants. The second is linked to expanding the margin of military action in areas it considers less costly in terms of official Lebanese reactions.”
Malaeb pointed to the development in the use of concussion bombs, considering that “Israel is seeking through this to show that the targeted sites are weapons or ammunition storage areas.” He noted, however, that “the Radwan Force that Israel claimed to have targeted in Thursday’s raids is an elite unit that relies on rapid movement and guerrilla warfare, and uses medium weapons that can be carried, not a traditional artillery or missile force that requires large depots or fixed infrastructure.”
Malaeb said that “Israel’s focus on naming the Radwan Force in its statements serves an internal objective, namely reassuring settlers in the Upper Galilee that the threat is under control,” adding: “Israelis talk about the redeployment of the Radwan Force and the possibility of it storming areas inside Israel; therefore, the focus is on targeting it to give residents there a sense of security.”
In a broader context, Malaeb said that “the three-hour meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump constituted a pivotal moment, as European information indicates that Israel was given a free hand in Lebanon in particular, within a wider margin of maneuver in the Middle East.”
He added: “The decision in the region is US by nature, of course, but in Lebanon it appears to be Israeli, and this is what we have observed on the ground, whether through the performance of envoys who come to Beirut, or through what was called the mechanism, whose role has effectively been canceled.”
He said that “the role that was supposed to be headed by an American party has turned into a tool of nullification rather than activation, as we have not seen a single objection to any of the Israeli attacks, which means that Israel is the one deciding how escalation unfolds in Lebanon.”
Israel’s conditions
The escalation in the Bekaa coincided with political and security rhetoric raising the level of possibilities in the region. The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported that “the possibility of Hezbollah entering the fighting against Israel if Iran is attacked is worrying and is being dealt with.”
Malaeb said that “giving Israel a free hand in Lebanon is linked to what will take place between the United States and Iran,” adding: “The decision between Washington and Tehran is American in essence, and could lead to understandings if interests converge, but Israel’s interest is different, as it views long-range missiles and Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat.”
He noted that “if the elements of Iran’s nuclear capability remain in place, and a final halt to enrichment is not achieved as Israel demands, then the likelihood of war remains. Israel may be the one to initiate it, while the US side may intervene later to rein in its pace, because any Iranian response would be wide-ranging, and it cannot be ruled out that Hezbollah would become involved in the confrontation within this context.”
