Have Hezbollah’s Drones Changed the Rules of Engagement with Israel?

Smoke rises following Israeli bombardment on the village of Jibchit in southern Lebanon on May 23, 2026. (AFP)
Smoke rises following Israeli bombardment on the village of Jibchit in southern Lebanon on May 23, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Have Hezbollah’s Drones Changed the Rules of Engagement with Israel?

Smoke rises following Israeli bombardment on the village of Jibchit in southern Lebanon on May 23, 2026. (AFP)
Smoke rises following Israeli bombardment on the village of Jibchit in southern Lebanon on May 23, 2026. (AFP)

The “support war” waged by Lebanon’s Hezbollah in backing Hamas in late 2023 shattered the doctrine of “deterrence” that the Iranian-backed group had embraced and promoted for nearly two decades in its confrontation with its traditional adversary, Israel. Israel, for its part, also helped reinforce this assumption, which proved entirely mistaken the following year. The new round of fighting in 2026 then offered both sides an opportunity to establish a new set of rules governing the conflict.

Israeli patience and cunning

Israel did not rush into a direct war with Hezbollah after the group launched a wave of largely “performative” attacks, beginning with rockets fired at the outskirts of Israeli military positions in the Shebaa Farms. Instead, it quietly steered the confrontation in a different direction, displaying notable restraint and considerable strategic calculation.

This approach was reflected in diplomatic efforts undertaken by Tel Aviv through Washington to persuade Hezbollah to separate the Lebanese front from the Palestinian one. In July 2024, then US envoy Amos Hochstein reportedly told Lebanese officials that he was prepared to deliver what would amount to a political victory for Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah if the group halted its operations.

Nasrallah immediately rejected the proposal. According to those who relayed the message to him, he replied that the war in Gaza would first have to end. After that, other matters could be discussed.

This was not Hezbollah’s first strategic misjudgment. The shape of the new conflict unfolding in Lebanon’s border villages quickly revealed a clear Israeli technological and military advantage. A senior Hezbollah official later disclosed that in previous confrontations, fighters could launch a rocket, calmly gather their equipment after informing command that the launch had been successful, and leave the site before Israeli aircraft arrived.

People react while attending the funeral of an Israeli soldier Captain Doctor Ori Yosef Silvester, a 30-year-old army doctor for the Givati Brigade's Shaked Battalion, who was killed in southern Lebanon, at the Segula Cemetery in Petah Tikva on June 2, 2026. (AFP)

In the new conflict, however, the window between launch and retaliation had narrowed to between five and twenty seconds. As a result, the official said, fighters often dug into the ground and sought immediate cover after firing in the hope of surviving. Every launch effectively became a near-suicidal operation.

Subsequent developments underscored Israel’s superiority even more clearly. Israeli forces carried out a series of precise assassinations targeting Hezbollah military commanders, culminating in a strike that eliminated most of the leadership of the Radwan Force, the group’s elite unit.

Israel then killed Hezbollah’s military commander and launched the “pager operation,” which put thousands of Hezbollah operatives out of action at the push of a button. This was followed by the assassination of Nasrallah in a massive airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs and, later, the killing of his successor, Hashem Safieddine.

Instruments of war

According to field sources, the weapons and tactics employed by both sides suggest that they prepared for a prolonged war of attrition rather than a decisive battle.

Beginning in the first week after the latest ceasefire agreement, Hezbollah reduced its reliance on rockets, scaled back the use of suicide drones, and curtailed the deployment of guided anti-tank missiles, whose operators were often vulnerable to detection. Instead, it introduced first-person-view (FPV) drones.

These drones are typically operated within a range of 10 to 15 kilometers in southern Lebanon and are guided through fiber-optic cables linking the aircraft directly to its operator. A thin wire connects the control station to the drone carrying the explosive payload, allowing it to evade electronic jamming.

An Israeli self-propelled howitzer artillery gun fires rounds towards southern Lebanon from a position in the upper Galilee in northern Israel near the border on March 15, 2026. (AFP)

Hezbollah in 2026: A war of drones

Hezbollah sought to regain the initiative in the latest conflict, which erupted in March and coincided with the war with Iran. Israel conveyed a message that it was not interested in opening a front with Lebanon so long as Hezbollah remained on the sidelines.

The group reassured officials in Beirut that it would not initiate hostilities. It nevertheless surprised observers by launching rockets toward northern Israel, prompting a fierce Israeli response.

Unlike the image it initially projected through the launch of six rudimentary rockets, Hezbollah appeared far more organized and capable in the fighting that followed, revealing capabilities that had remained concealed during 15 months of relative calm. The group claimed to be carrying out as many as 100 operations a day against Israeli forces and introduced new weapons systems to the battlefield.

Its ground strategy also evolved. Rather than relying on static defenses or attempting to halt Israeli advances outright, Hezbollah focused on inflicting the greatest possible damage on advancing forces.

Rise of drones

Rockets no longer dominate the battlefield between Israel and Hezbollah. After weeks of fighting that erupted in the spring of 2026, a notable shift emerged in the military operations, with attack and suicide drones moving to the forefront and becoming one of the most influential factors shaping combat on both sides of the border.

For years, Hezbollah’s military identity was closely associated with its vast rocket arsenal, which represented Israel’s primary security concern. The current conflict, however, has shown that the group no longer relies exclusively on rockets. Instead, it has expanded its use of drones on a large scale.

According to Israeli assessments, a substantial share of Hezbollah’s recent attacks has involved attack and suicide drones, while conventional rockets have assumed a less prominent role than before.

Israeli researchers argue that this shift reflects lessons drawn from recent conflicts, particularly the war in Ukraine, where inexpensive drones demonstrated their ability to inflict significant losses on technologically superior forces.

According to Israeli reports and military studies published since the outbreak of the war in March, Hezbollah’s principal weapon is no longer its rocket arsenal alone but the attack and suicide drones that have become the primary threat facing Israeli forces in southern Lebanon.

Israeli soldiers operate a drone. (Israeli army)

Foremost among these are FPV suicide drones guided by thin fiber-optic cables, making them effectively immune to electronic jamming. Their small size, low-altitude flight profiles, and erratic maneuverability pose additional challenges for Israeli radar and air-defense systems.

These drones carry relatively small explosive payloads, typically weighing no more than five kilograms. A Lebanese security source told Asharq Al-Awsat that Hezbollah employs three different types of warheads depending on the intended target—whether a tank, a conventional vehicle, or personnel.

Former Israeli officers say the threat posed by these drones extends beyond fixed military targets. They are also capable of tracking moving forces and striking tanks, vehicles, and field command centers, placing continuous pressure on Israeli ground units in southern Lebanon.

No definitive figures are available regarding the number of suicide drones Hezbollah has used since the beginning of the war. Unofficial Israeli estimates, however, suggest that the number may range from several hundred launches to more than a thousand.

Israel recently stated that Hezbollah had launched more than 120 drones of this type. The group, meanwhile, has released dozens of videos purporting to show drones striking vehicles, armored platforms, electronic systems, and personnel in the field.

Israel says Hezbollah’s operations have killed 20 soldiers and wounded dozens more since March.

In addition, Hezbollah has claimed responsibility for detonating explosive devices against Israeli vehicles deep inside operational areas and for repelling Israeli incursions using light and medium machine guns, as well as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).

A screengrab image taken from a handout video released by the Israeli army and created on April 27, 2026, shows Israeli army footage of what it says is the destruction of Hezbollah infrastructure in Lebanon, where a ceasefire has been in place since mid-April. (Israel Army / AFP)

Anti-armor missiles

Anti-armor missiles remain the backbone of Hezbollah’s ground warfare capability and have been used against Israeli tanks, vehicles, and fortifications.

Israeli sources point in particular to the Almas missile family, derived from Israel’s Spike missile system. According to those sources, Iran reverse-engineered the weapon after Hezbollah fighters captured an Israeli missile during the 2006 war. Russian-made Kornet systems and other anti-tank platforms also remain in service.

A third category of weapons consists of short- and medium-range rockets and artillery projectiles used extensively against military positions, troop concentrations, and bases in the Galilee and northern Israel. Their use, however, declined relative to drones during many phases of the 2026 conflict.

Reconnaissance and attack drones

Reconnaissance and attack drones rank fourth among Hezbollah’s principal battlefield systems.

Not all of them are suicide drones. Some are used for surveillance, fire correction, and target acquisition, while others carry small munitions and return to base after completing their missions.

Israeli sources have also reported limited use of anti-aircraft missiles and air-defense fire directed at Israeli aircraft.

Nevertheless, these systems have not proven as decisive as drones and anti-armor missiles in the current conflict.

A photograph taken from the southern area of Marjeyoun shows flares fired by the Israeli military descending over the village of Arnoun late on May 13, 2026. (AFP)

Evolving tactics

Israel, too, has adapted its methods of warfare.

Rather than relying primarily on armored formations advancing under air cover, it has sought to reduce casualties and increase mobility.

Lebanese security sources said the Israeli military has adopted tactics centered on small special forces teams moving along unpaved routes to avoid mines and ambushes. At the first sign of resistance, these units withdraw while combat aircraft strike hostile firing positions.

Alongside heavy air raids conducted by fighter jets and precision strikes carried out by drones against individuals traveling in cars and motorcycles, Israel has introduced two additional systems to the battlefield.

The first consists of loitering munitions, which have appeared in footage targeting motorcycles and personnel in the field.

The second is the extensive use of guided artillery rounds in 155 mm and 240 mm calibers, according to field sources in southern Lebanon. These systems have been employed against villages located well beyond the border zone.

The sources described the rounds as laser-guided, providing greater accuracy and enabling strikes at distances reaching up to 30 kilometers inside Lebanese territory.

According to Israeli statements and observations by military research centers during the 2026 war, unmanned aerial systems have been among the most heavily utilized assets in Lebanon. Israel maintains an extensive drone network covering both front-line and rear areas, including the Hermes 900 and Hermes 450 platforms, as well as smaller Skylark reconnaissance drones.

These systems have been used for surveillance, target acquisition, fire direction, and precision strikes against both mobile and fixed targets.

A beachgoer stands in the water against the backdrop of smoke rising from the site of an Israeli strike that targeted the southern Lebanese village of al-Mansouri on May 22, 2026. (AFP)

Precision munitions and guided missiles

Israel has also employed long-range missiles from the Spike NLOS family, as well as precision-guided aerial munitions launched from aircraft and drones against command centers and launch sites.

Tanks and armored units remain central to Israeli ground operations in southern Lebanon, although many have come under attack from drones and anti-armor missiles.

Israel has also employed artillery, surface-to-surface missiles, long-range rocket launchers, and self-propelled guns to strike targets deep inside Lebanon, along with precision ground-to-ground missiles against preselected objectives.

Air-defense systems

Israel possesses several major air-defense systems, most notably Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow.

Yet Israeli reports themselves acknowledge that these systems have faced difficulties countering the small suicide drones used by Hezbollah, particularly those guided through fiber-optic cables.

Israeli media previously reported that the military had introduced the Ro’em artillery system into service in southern Lebanon. The Israeli-made 155 mm system is wheel-mounted for enhanced mobility, features automatic loading, requires a crew of only three rather than seven personnel, offers a firing range of up to 40 kilometers, and incorporates advanced command-and-control capabilities.

Heavy machinery clears the rubble at the site of an overnight Israeli strike in the southern city of Tyre, Lebanon, May 23, 2026. (Reuters)

Rules of engagement

Since the ceasefire took effect, Hezbollah has sought to establish rules of engagement that would confine the fighting to occupied territory by refraining from targeting Israeli towns and settlements in the north. The Israeli military, however, gradually expanded the battlefield through sustained airstrikes and bombardment reaching the outskirts of Sidon.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, retired Brig. Gen. Said Kozah said Hezbollah has been attempting since the ceasefire to establish a new operational equation with Israel based on the principle that every Israeli strike should trigger a response. However, he argued, Israel continues to work against this.

Kozah noted that describing the situation as “rules of engagement” is not entirely accurate because the term is generally used between regular armies or within a clearly defined military framework.

“In practice,” he said, “Hezbollah is attempting to entrench a new set of rules under which any Israeli attack would be met with retaliation—whether through strikes against Israeli positions in occupied Lebanese territory or through rocket fire directed into Israel.”

He added that Hezbollah had recently carried out operations against Israeli positions in the border area, some involving drones and others consisting of infiltration attempts or direct attacks.

He also remarked that rocket launches into Israel had declined in recent days and that many had been intercepted because of the relatively limited numbers employed.

According to Kozah, Hezbollah seeks through these operations to reinforce the legitimacy of retaining its weapons under the banner of resisting occupation within Lebanese territory. At the same time, the group avoids addressing the factors that led to the current level of escalation and occupation.

As for whether Hezbollah has succeeded in imposing this new equation, Kozah said the situation suggests Israel remains the one setting the rules.

“The Israeli military is not limiting its operations to the buffer zone or the so-called ‘Yellow Line,’” he said. “It continues to conduct operations, clearing activities, and strikes against villages north of that line, effectively rejecting the balance Hezbollah is trying to establish.”



How the Yemeni Gov’t Handled Iran’s Sanaa Airport Escalation

Yemen’s armed forces claimed responsibility for targeting the runway at Sanaa airport to prevent the Iranian aircraft from landing. (EPA)
Yemen’s armed forces claimed responsibility for targeting the runway at Sanaa airport to prevent the Iranian aircraft from landing. (EPA)
TT

How the Yemeni Gov’t Handled Iran’s Sanaa Airport Escalation

Yemen’s armed forces claimed responsibility for targeting the runway at Sanaa airport to prevent the Iranian aircraft from landing. (EPA)
Yemen’s armed forces claimed responsibility for targeting the runway at Sanaa airport to prevent the Iranian aircraft from landing. (EPA)

Yemen’s leadership viewed an Iranian aircraft’s attempt to land at Sanaa airport last Monday as more than an aviation incident that could be overlooked to avoid further escalation.

It saw the attempted landing as a direct challenge to state sovereignty and an effort to impose a new political and military reality outside the country’s legitimate institutions at a time of unprecedented regional tension.

Unlike in previous crises, the government responded through a coordinated mix of calculated military action, organized political measures, and legal and diplomatic efforts. It also sought to avoid a wider confrontation that it believed Tehran wanted in order to turn Yemen once again into an arena for regional conflict.

From the first hours of the crisis, Yemen’s leadership emphasized a central message: defending sovereignty does not conflict with pursuing peace, and the state can enforce the law without abandoning its responsibility to protect civilians or preserve the prospects of a political settlement.

The targeting of Sanaa airport’s runway to prevent the Iranian aircraft from landing was therefore the final step in a long series of political and legal measures that preceded the use of force.

The government said it had exhausted all official channels to operate the airport and had offered alternatives to ensure the continuation of civilian flights via Yemenia Airways, the national carrier legally authorized to operate them.

What distinguished the government’s handling of the crisis was that it did not merely respond to the incident but also sought to shape the political narrative surrounding it.

From the outset, official statements stressed that the dispute was not over the operation of Sanaa airport or citizens’ ability to travel. It concerned an attempt to seize one of the state’s most important sovereign powers: control over its airspace and international ports of entry.

The Yemeni leadership repeatedly said the problem was not the aircraft itself, but the operation of international flights without the approval of the legitimate authorities, in violation of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and UN Security Council resolutions on Yemen.

The government also said it had proposed practical solutions before the escalation, including transporting the Houthi delegation from Tehran aboard an aircraft chartered by Yemenia Airways.

It said the group rejected the offer, strengthening the government’s argument before the international community that it had resorted to force only after exhausting other options.

Presidential Leadership Council (PLC) Chairman Rashad al-Alimi said the priority was to protect civilian lives and public property and avoid widening the confrontation in a way that would serve Iran’s goal of drawing Yemen into regional conflicts.

The message was intended to reassure the public and show that the military decision remained subject to careful political calculations rather than emotional reactions.

The government’s continuous meetings and the formation of a national crisis-management team also reflected a shift toward a unified approach combining military, political, diplomatic and media efforts.

This gave the official response greater coherence than in previous crises.

Domestic, International Support

Observers say the Yemeni government also succeeded in turning the crisis from a confrontation between itself and the Houthis into an issue concerning respect for the sovereignty of a UN member state.

Domestically, the House of Representatives, the Shura Council, the Consultation and Reconciliation Commission and the National Bloc of Political Parties and Components quickly declared their full support for the measures taken by the PLC.

They described the incident as a violation of Yemeni sovereignty rather than merely a political dispute.

The significance of this alignment was that it came from official institutions and political parties affiliated with the legitimate authorities, giving the leadership political cover against attempts to portray it as lacking internal consensus in its handling of the crisis.

Internationally, Yemen’s diplomatic efforts appeared to have preceded the UN Security Council meeting, after the government succeeded in persuading several major powers to adopt positions close to its account of the incident.

The United States described the Iranian landing as a violation of Yemeni sovereignty and linked it to the possible transfer of military experts and equipment to the Houthis, saying this would breach Security Council resolutions.

Britain said any flights conducted without the approval of the legitimate government constituted a violation of international law and called for an investigation through UN mechanisms.

France went further, linking the incident to what it described as Iran’s destabilizing conduct in the region.

It renewed its call for an end to the transfer of military equipment to the Houthis while reaffirming its support for Yemen’s unity and sovereignty.

Although the United Nations maintained its traditional call for de-escalation, it also stressed the need to respect Yemen’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, giving the government additional political support in defending its position.

Multiple Messages

The legitimate Yemeni authorities’ handling of the Iranian aircraft crisis can be seen as an attempt to deliver three parallel messages.

The first was directed at Iran: Yemen was no longer an open arena where new realities could be imposed through air traffic or sovereign ports of entry, and any attempt to bypass state institutions would face practical measures, even as the government remained committed to peace.

The second message was aimed at the Houthis: using civilian suffering or Sanaa airport as political leverage would not lead to recognition of authorities operating in parallel to the state.

The government would not allow sovereign powers to be established outside its institutions.

The third message had an international dimension.

The government called on the Security Council to move from condemnation to deterrence by strictly enforcing sanctions and council resolutions, particularly resolutions 2140 and 2216.

It said continued tolerance of violations would encourage their repetition.

Despite the political and diplomatic gains achieved by the legitimate authorities, however, the crisis has not ended in practical terms.

It remains tied to the international community’s ability to translate condemnation into measures that prevent similar incidents and ensure respect for the Yemeni state’s sovereignty over all land, sea and air entry points.

The continuing efforts of UN envoy Hans Grundberg, alongside international positions supporting de-escalation, also reflect growing recognition that preserving the fragile truce requires addressing the roots of the crisis.

These include ending the Houthi coup and preventing humanitarian issues and sovereign ports of entry from being used as tools of conflict.

For the Yemeni government, observers say, the crisis was more a political test than a military one.

Through its response, it sought to establish a new equation: defending sovereignty does not contradict the pursuit of peace, and the state can combine restraint with resolve while respecting international law and asserting its authority.


How Could Growing Egypt-Türkiye Ties Shape Regional Conflicts?

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sign a military cooperation agreement in Cairo on Feb. 4. (Turkish Presidency)
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sign a military cooperation agreement in Cairo on Feb. 4. (Turkish Presidency)
TT

How Could Growing Egypt-Türkiye Ties Shape Regional Conflicts?

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sign a military cooperation agreement in Cairo on Feb. 4. (Turkish Presidency)
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sign a military cooperation agreement in Cairo on Feb. 4. (Turkish Presidency)

A series of high-level meetings between Egypt and Türkiye has culminated in the first visit by an Egyptian defense minister to Ankara in 13 years, raising questions about whether the two countries’ rapidly expanding ties could help ease conflicts across the Middle East.

The visit, which began Sunday, included the signing of a letter of intent on defense cooperation.

Experts interviewed by Asharq Al-Awsat differed, however, on the extent to which the rapprochement has translated into tangible gains. While some argued it has helped reduce tensions, particularly in Libya, others said it has yet to produce meaningful progress in the region’s major crises.

Türkiye and Egypt signed the defense cooperation letter on Monday following talks in Ankara between Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Guler and his Egyptian counterpart, Ashraf Salem Zaher.

The visit followed the conclusion of the Anatolian Eagle 2026 joint air exercise, which brought together the Egyptian, Turkish and Azerbaijani air forces, with the participation of a NATO airborne early warning aircraft. It also came after the fifth meeting of the Egyptian-Turkish Joint Military Committee.

The two countries held the inaugural meeting of their High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council during Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s visit to Ankara in September 2024, after reviving the mechanism during Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Cairo earlier that year.
A second council meeting in Cairo last February produced a joint statement highlighting closer positions on the Palestinian issue and the crises in Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia and the Sahel, as well as counterterrorism.

Bashir Abdel Fattah, a Türkiye affairs specialist at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, said the rapprochement had at least prevented confrontation in Libya, where Cairo and Ankara once backed rival interests.

He noted that the growing political understanding between the two countries has helped de-escalate the conflict and support efforts toward a political settlement that preserves Libya’s territorial integrity.

Türkiye analyst Mahmoud Alloush shared that assessment, describing Egyptian-Turkish coordination as a turning point in Libya and noting parallel efforts involving Saudi Arabia to advance a political solution.

Not everyone is convinced. Rokha Ahmed Hassan, a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, said expectations that Egyptian-Turkish understandings would help resolve Libya’s crisis have yet to be realized, largely because of divisions among Libyan parties.

He argued that while bilateral coordination has strengthened political dialogue across the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, it has not yet delivered concrete results.

On July 11, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan agreed during a phone call to continue consultations on shared security concerns and work to prevent further military escalation in the region.

On Syria, Abdel Fattah said Cairo and Ankara agree on preserving the country’s unity despite differences over Türkiye’s military presence.

He stressed that expanding political and military coordination is creating the trust needed to address contentious issues, including Israeli actions in Syria, reconstruction and burden-sharing.

Hassan, however, said the rapprochement has yet to produce a positive impact on Syria because Cairo and Ankara continue to differ over Türkiye’s approach to Islamist groups.

The two countries are more closely aligned on Somalia. Hassan emphasized that their shared support for Somalia’s territorial integrity has had positive, albeit gradual, effects, though significant security challenges remain.

Alloush described Somalia as an example of “competitive cooperation,” arguing that managed competition between Egypt and Türkiye could ultimately strengthen stability there.

Abdel Fattah, for his part, noted that the emerging partnership provides a solid strategic framework that could help cool regional conflicts. He called for broader coordination with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to curb destabilizing external interference and establish a regional order that better serves the interests of Middle Eastern states.

On June 21, El-Sisi called for institutionalizing the consultative mechanism bringing together Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan, which was launched three weeks after the outbreak of the US-Iran war in late February.


Ticking Time Bomb? Europe’s Ageing Population Brings Challenges

 A resident of a nursing home eats fruit to beat the heat in Munich, Germany, July 14, 2026. (Reuters)
A resident of a nursing home eats fruit to beat the heat in Munich, Germany, July 14, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

Ticking Time Bomb? Europe’s Ageing Population Brings Challenges

 A resident of a nursing home eats fruit to beat the heat in Munich, Germany, July 14, 2026. (Reuters)
A resident of a nursing home eats fruit to beat the heat in Munich, Germany, July 14, 2026. (Reuters)

The population of the 27-nation European Union will peak in 2029 before falling in the coming decades, according to a report published Tuesday that spotlights the major challenges the bloc faces from an ageing population.

Today there are 450.6 million people, but researchers say this will peak at 453.3 million in 2029 before a slow long-term decline.

The population will fall to 398.8 million people by 2100, an overall drop of 11.7 percent and a level that was last experienced in the 1970s.

Europeans are living longer than ever before thanks to vastly improved healthcare, and better life and social conditions.

But an ageing population poses challenges for society and the EU economy, and while migration could help, it's not the fix Europe might hope for.

The EU executive's Joint Research Center said life expectancy at birth reached 81.5 years in 2024.

By 2050, nearly one in three EU residents will be aged 65 or older, compared to one in five today, the center said.

By 2100, life expectancy could exceed 90 years for women and 86 for men.

Such trends present "significant challenges", the EU said, including labor shortages, strained public budgets, and pressure on care and education systems.

It is, however, not all negative as the report points to the rise of the "silver economy" -- a growing market for goods and services for older citizens.

- 'Migration is a necessity' -

Migration can help offset some effects of Europe's demographic change, the researchers said, but it would have a limited impact on "fully" addressing the challenges posed by an ageing population.

But as fertility rates fall, migration counterbalances the negative effects of an ageing population and labor force contraction, the report said.

"Migration is a necessity," EU commissioner Dubravka Suica told reporters.

Fewer babies are being born to each woman in Europe, a decline that has been steady since the 1960s.

The fertility rate fell to 1.34 children per woman in 2024, well below the replacement level of 2.1 needed to keep the population stable without migration.

The median age of a European was 44.9 in 2025, and there are major disparities between EU countries. Ireland is relatively young with a median age of 39.6 years while Italy's was 49.1.

"We are living longer, healthier lives than ever before -- one of our greatest achievements. But demographic change is reshaping our societies, our economies and our labor markets," Suica said in a statement.

"We must act now to turn this transformation into an opportunity," she added.

The EU insists the bloc must boost productivity and cut unemployment to offset the effects of a shrinking workforce.

Currently around 20 percent of working-age Europeans are outside the labor force, the report said, while some eight million young people are neither in employment, education nor training.

The situation is particular to Europe as the global population is not falling.

Population growth is increasingly concentrated in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and some Middle Eastern countries, the report said.