Al-Sudani and Maliki: More than Just an Iraqi Cold War

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. (Reuters)
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. (Reuters)
TT

Al-Sudani and Maliki: More than Just an Iraqi Cold War

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. (Reuters)
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. (Reuters)

A cold war is brewing between Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani and former PM Nouri al-Maliki. They are forging ahead rapidly towards next year’s parliamentary elections. The rivalry between them will be fierce, unless they strike a deal, said officials from Maliki’s Islamic Dawa party and the ruling pro-Iran Coordination Framework.

Maliki is seeking to hold early elections, which is unlikely to happen, but observers said he is simply trying to pile pressure on al-Sudani. More important than the date of the elections is the electoral law itself, which the rivals can shape to suit their or Iraq’s interests.

As it stands, Maliki appears the more eager of the two to draft the new law. People who have worked with him in drafting proposals revealed that he is thinking more about setting up “traps” for al-Sudani, who is eying a second term in office, than about his own chances of victory in the new parliament.

Kingmaker

Maliki is seen as the maker of uncrowned kings. They are kings who work for him in service of an agenda that he kicked off in 2006 when he first became prime minister, replacing Ibrahim al-Jaafari who was “shunned by the Iranian-American equation in Iraq.”

Maliki honed his political skills in the past two decades. He learned how to maneuver and smoothly move from one camp to another, something he has grown particularly adept at. He is also known for his “strong sectarian leanings and paranoia,” which draws to him all “ambitious and anxious Shiites,” said people who have worked with and against him in the past 20 years.

Even after leaving government, Maliki remained the “godfather” of the Shiite political project in Iraq. He was always sought out by “sectarian” parties whenever the system in Iraq came under threat, even if the threat came from Shiites themselves.

Ultimately, Maliki has presented himself as the “savior of the Shiites in modern Iraq.” The last time he managed to bring them together was when Sadrist movement leader cleric Moqtada al-Sadr sought to turn against them and expel them from government when he tried to forge an alliance with the Sunnis and Kurds in 2020. Maliki’s image as the “sponsor of the deep Shiite state” in Iraq grew further with the formation of the Coordination Framework that allowed al-Sudani to come to power.

In fact, Maliki believes he is the sole representatives of the deep Shiite state. He expects his allies to not infringe on his “historic standing and leadership.” But what happens when a person, who Maliki himself had brought to power and shaped their political agenda, rebels against him? What if al-Sudani were to run for a second term in office?

‘Right’ man

Al-Sudani was an agricultural engineer working for the government in the Maysan province when the American forces occupied Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein’s regime. Because he was a senior state employee and son of a dissident Shiite family, he was appointed coordinator between the city authority and ruling American administration in Baghdad.

Over the years, al-Sudani assumed various public posts. It was evident that he was skilled at maneuvering government work and withstanding its upheavals.

Maliki sensed that al-Sudani was the “right man” around whom he could form his successive governments. Al-Sudani was minister of industry and minerals, labor and social affairs, and human rights in three governments. Maliki viewed him as a “second-class” politician, but at least he was consistent in serving the “Shiite project” over the years.

In 2019, hundreds of thousands of Shiite youths took to the streets to protest against the government and al-Sudani jumped ship from the Dawa party to form his own small party, the Al-Furatayn, with the goal of joining the league of major Shiite figures. Two years later, he was named prime minister after much political wrangling.

In 2022, al-Sudani visited Hadi al-Ameri’s house with a list of commitments he was demanding of the Coordination Framework – the sponsors of his new government. However, Maliki – along with Qais al-Khazali, the leader of the Asaib Ahl al-Haq group – were ahead of him and had prepared their own list of commitments they expected al-Sudani to meet during his term in office.

The list handed to al-Sudani reflected Maliki’s way of thinking and how he viewed the new premier as “an agricultural engineer who was tasked with heading a government.”

Al-Sudani aspired to be much more than that. He kicked off his work as prime minister calmly as he dedicated the early days to erasing the legacy of his predecessor Mustafa al-Kadhimi – at least, these were the “instructions” coming in from the Framework.

Al-Sudani’s aspirations

Later, al-Sudani began to show strong signs of his aspirations. He presented himself and his ministers as being focused on services and development, securing an unprecedented state budget at the time.

The Framework saw no political threat in a government that offers services. In fact, it believed that such services “have no value when it comes to political balances and equations”, according to Shiite politicians.

Two years later, however, al-Sudani now has the loyalty of nearly 50 lawmakers who “effectively defected” from the Framework. The PM believed that any former lawmaker was a potential future partner in his political bloc in the next parliament.

He also formed alliances with three powerful province governors: Asaad Al-Eidani of al-Basra, Mohammed al-Mayahi of al-Kut and Nesayif Al-Khattabi of Karbala – all defectors of the Framework.

Asked about al-Sudani’s current influence in parliament, Shiite leaderships told Asharq Al-Awsat that he boasts around 60 MPs and even more could join him.

In March, Maliki made light of al-Sudani’s power in parliament, remarking that back in 2014, he [Maliki] won 103 seats in the legislature but still wasn’t named prime minister due to political bickering. “So, what do 60 seats mean? Nothing. Numbers are not enough,” he added.

So why the animosity towards al-Sudani? Maliki believes that al-Sudani is eating away at his own political power, using the tools of the “deep state”, and extending his hand to his own supporters to create new alliances outside of the current political equation and Coordination Framework – the most important alliance in the country.

Long- and short-term plans

Maliki believes that he was the one who made al-Sudani and he should be the one who controls his political fate.

And yet, Maliki cannot wage an open battle with al-Sudani because he is bound by the traditions of the right-wing Shiite movement in Iraq and the need to allow it to grow and prosper. Moreover, al-Sudani has managed to occupy a significant role in Iraq: enjoying Iranian and American consensus – the most enviable role a prime minister can dream of. Wasn’t that the same role Maliki played in his first term as premier?

In the long-term, what Maliki can do is set up a trap for his former colleague by drafting a new electoral law that strips the prime minister of any privileges. He effectively wants to deprive al-Sudani of the privileges Maliki enjoyed in 2010.

Sources revealed that elections experts have been working with Maliki for the past two months to draft the new law. Progress has been made, especially with Sunnis and Kurds joining the process.

Maliki is so determined to see al-Sudani fail that he is willing to draft a law that wouldn’t even secure him – Maliki – a victory.

In the short-term, he is trying to lure al-Sudani’s allies away from him. If he can’t, then he will set them up to fail. Decision-makers in the Framework said that when al-Sudani makes it to the final stages of the elections, he’ll be lucky if he manages to retain one of the powerful three governors by his side. Maliki is determined to remove them from their alliance with al-Sudani.

Learning from Maliki

Al-Sudani is aware that the Shiites will be confronted with a new dynamism in the next elections that could lead to the end of the Coordination Framework or shift to new hubs of influence. Al-Sudani is hoping to become the head of one of these spheres of influence.

Observers said the PM will counter Maliki’s attempts to undermine him by holding “arduous” talks with the Sunni and Kurds and that he may mull various settlements that may persuade them to abandon the former PM’s camp.

As for his allies, he will seek to hold on to them even though partnerships in Iraq are constantly shifting. He will seek to gain more Shiite support, especially among governors and the military.

Al-Sudani is learning from Maliki. One of the causes of the tumult in the Framework is due to the “arrogance of the founders and their annoyance with the boldness of their students,” said a leading Shiite figure. He added that al-Sudani may not be the sole mutinous member, but al-Khazali is paving his own path to break away from Maliki.

The Shiite figure believes that the balance is now tipped in al-Sudani’s favor because he has so far presented himself as a “trusted partner to main players in the region, including Iran.” He also supports “promising partnerships that are tied to agreements to uphold calm and form a new Middle East of which Iraq is a main foundation.”

Heated battle

As the government enters its final year in office, the cold war between al-Sudani and Maliki will become more heated. Observers believe that recent corruption scandals and the involvement of government officials in suspicious dealings is only the warmup for what’s to come.

Al-Sudani may have come on top in some rounds, but Maliki managed to score points. A Kurdish official explained that in recent months, the PM has tried to gain influence in the local governments in Diyala and Kirkuk by sponsoring agreements with winners in the local elections, but Maliki had the final say in naming the first governor, effectively annulling the agreements al-Sudani had reached.

A Sunni politician taking part in the secret negotiations to draft the electoral law said “electoral nooses” will now start being set up, predicting a changes in the Shiite political landscape that will impact Sunni and Kurdish forces.

Shiite politicians are however, concerned that the soon-to-be grinding battle between al-Sudani and Maliki will threaten the gains of the right-wing Shiite movement after two years of prosperity.

Ultimately, Maliki will not be opposed to al-Sudani heading a small bloc in parliament. “There’s nothing wrong with the likes of Ammar al-Hakim, Hadi al-Ameri and others holding ten parliamentary seats,” said a leading Framework member, explaining that the battle is “all about numbers” and controlling them to avoid any surprises.

The prevalent belief in the Shiite camp is that the traditional factors that used to influence the political scene in Iraq were fading, namely the Shiite Religious Authority and the Americans. Iran does wield influence and “prefers to intervene at the final moment after watching the scene unfold very closely and patiently.”

So, how will the cold war end? The Shiite leaders spoke of three outcomes: Either al-Sudani makes it to the end, or he strikes a deal with Maliki with the sponsorship of a third party, or one of them ends up with severe political injuries.



Trump’s Anger Over Iran Thrusts NATO into Fresh Crisis

A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
TT

Trump’s Anger Over Iran Thrusts NATO into Fresh Crisis

A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)

The NATO alliance has in recent years survived existential challenges - ranging from the war in Ukraine to multiple bouts of pressure and insults from US President Donald Trump, who has questioned its core mission and threatened to seize Greenland.

But it is the US-Israeli war with Iran, thousands of miles from Europe, that has nearly broken the 76-year-old bloc and threatens to leave it in its weakest state since its creation, say analysts and diplomats.

Trump, enraged that European countries have declined to send their navies to open up the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping following the start of the air war on Feb 28, has declared he is considering withdrawing from the alliance.

"Wouldn't you if you were me?" Trump asked Reuters in a Wednesday interview.

In a speech on Wednesday night, Trump criticized US allies but stopped short of condemning NATO, as many experts thought he might.

But combined with other barbs aimed at Europeans in recent weeks, Trump's comments have provoked unprecedented concern that the US will not come to the aid of European allies should they be attacked, whether or not Washington formally walks away.

The result, say analysts and diplomats, is that the alliance created in the Cold War that has long served as the basic fabric of European security is fraying and the mutual defense agreement at its core is no longer taken as a given.

"This is the worst place (NATO) has been since it was founded," said Max Bergmann, a former State Department official who now leads the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"It's really hard to ‌think of anything that ‌even comes close."

That reality is sinking in for Europeans, who have counted on NATO as a bulwark against an increasingly assertive Russia.

As recently ‌as February, ⁠NATO Secretary-General Mark ⁠Rutte had dismissed the idea of Europe defending itself without the US as a "silly thought." Now, many officials and diplomats consider it the default expectation.

"NATO remains necessary, but we must be capable of thinking of NATO without the Americans," said General Francois Lecointre, who served as France's armed forces chief from 2017 to 2021.

"Whether it should even continue to be called NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization - is a valid question."

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said: “President Trump has made his disappointment with NATO and other allies clear, and as the President emphasized, ‘the United States will remember.’”

A NATO representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT

NATO has been challenged before, not least during Trump's first term from 2017 to 2021, when he also considered withdrawing from the alliance.

But while many European officials until recently believed that Trump could be kept on board with pomp and flattery, fewer now hold that belief, according to conversations with dozens of former and current US and European officials.

Trump and his officials have expressed frustration over what they see as NATO's unwillingness to help the United ⁠States in a time of need, including by not directly assisting with the Strait of Hormuz and by restricting US use of some airfields and ‌airspace. US officials have declared NATO cannot be a "one-way street".

European officials counter that they have not received US requests for specific ‌assets for a mission to open the strait and complain that Washington has been inconsistent about whether such a mission would operate during or after the war.

"It's a terrible situation for NATO to be in," said ‌Jamie Shea, a former senior NATO official who is now a senior fellow at the Friends of Europe think tank.

"It is a blow to the allies who, since Trump returned to ‌the White House, have worked hard to show that they are willing and able to take more responsibility (for their own defense)."

Trump's latest comments follow other signs of an increasingly unsteady alliance.

Those include his stepped-up threats in January to wrest Greenland away from Denmark and recent moves by the US that Europeans see as particularly accommodating toward Russia, which NATO defines as its principal security threat.

The administration has remained essentially mum amid reports that Moscow has provided targeting data for Iran to attack US assets in the Middle East and has lifted sanctions on Russian oil in a bid to ease global energy prices that have spiked during the war.

At a meeting of G7 foreign ministers ‌near Paris last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Kaja Kallas, the foreign policy chief of the European Union, had a tense exchange, according to five people familiar with the matter, underlining the increasingly fraught transatlantic relationship.

Kallas asked when US patience with Russian President Vladimir ⁠Putin would run out over Ukraine peace negotiations, prompting Rubio ⁠to respond with irritation that the US was trying to end the war while also providing support to Ukraine, but the EU was welcome to mediate if it wanted to.

NO GOING BACK

Legally, Trump may lack the authority to withdraw from NATO. Under a law passed in 2023, a US president cannot exit the alliance without the consent of two-thirds of the US Senate, a nearly impossible threshold.

But analysts say that, as commander-in-chief, Trump can decide whether the US military will defend NATO members. Declining to do so could imperil the alliance without a formal withdrawal.

To be sure, not everyone sees the current crisis as existential. One French diplomat described the president's rhetoric as a passing temper tantrum.

Trump has changed his position on NATO before.

In 2024, he said on the campaign trail that he would encourage Putin to attack NATO members that do not pay their fair share on defense. By the last annual NATO summit, in June 2025, the alliance was in his good graces, with Trump delivering a speech effusively praising European leaders as people who "love their countries."

Next week, Rutte, the NATO secretary-general, who has a strong relationship with Trump, is set to visit Washington in an effort to change Trump's view once again.

Analysts say European nations have good reason to keep the US engaged in NATO despite doubts over whether Trump would come to their defense. Among other reasons, the US military provides a range of capabilities NATO can't easily replace, such as satellite intelligence.

Even if Trump and the Europeans find a way to stay together in NATO, diplomats, analysts and officials say, the transatlantic alliance that has been central to the global order since World War Two may never be the same.

"I do think we're turning the page of 80 years of working together," said Julianne Smith, the US ambassador to NATO under Democratic President Joe Biden.

"I don't think it means the end of the transatlantic relationship, but we're on the cusp of something that's going to have a different look and feel to it."


A Look at the UK’s Royal Navy, Which Has Faced Jibe After Jibe from Trump and Hegseth

Indonesian soldiers stand guard as Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Spey is docked at Tanjung Priok Port during a port visit in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, File)
Indonesian soldiers stand guard as Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Spey is docked at Tanjung Priok Port during a port visit in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, File)
TT

A Look at the UK’s Royal Navy, Which Has Faced Jibe After Jibe from Trump and Hegseth

Indonesian soldiers stand guard as Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Spey is docked at Tanjung Priok Port during a port visit in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, File)
Indonesian soldiers stand guard as Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Spey is docked at Tanjung Priok Port during a port visit in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, File)

US President Donald Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been damning of the UK's naval capabilities. Their jibes may have stung in a country with a long and proud maritime history, but they do carry some substance.

The UK has been at the forefront of Trump’s ire since the onset of the Iran war on Feb. 28, when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to grant the US military access to British bases.

Though that decision has been partly reversed with the decision to permit the US to use the bases, including that of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, for so-called defensive purposes, Trump is adamant he was let down. He has repeatedly lashed out at Starmer and branded the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers as “toys.”

“You don’t even have a navy,” he told Britain's Daily Telegraph in comments published Wednesday. "You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work.”

Hegseth, meanwhile, said sarcastically that the “big, bad Royal Navy” should get involved in making the Strait of Hormuz safe for commercial shipping.

For numerous reasons, the Royal Navy is not as big and bad as it used to be when Britannia ruled the waves. But it's not as feeble as Trump and Hegseth imply and is largely similar with the French navy, which it is often compared with.

“On the negative side, there is a grain of truth, with the Royal Navy being smaller than it has been in hundreds of years,” said professor Kevin Rowlands, editor of the Royal United Services Institute Journal. “On the positive side, the Royal Navy would say that it’s entering its first period of growth since World War II, with more ships set to be built than in decades.”

Capabilities and preparedness

It’s not that long ago that Britain could muster a task force of 127 ships, including two aircraft carriers, to sail to the south Atlantic after Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands. That 1982 campaign, which then-US President Ronald Reagan was lukewarm about, marked the final hurrah of Britain’s naval pedigree.

Nothing on that scale, or even remotely, could be accomplished now. Since World War II, Britain’s combat-ready fleet has declined substantially, much of it linked to changing military and technological advances and the end of empire. But not all.

The number of vessels in the Royal Navy fleet, including aircraft carriers, destroyers frigates and submarines has fallen from 166 in 1975 to 66 in 2025, according to The Associated Press' analysis of figures from the Ministry of Defense and the House of Commons Library.

Though the Royal Navy has two aircraft carriers at its command, there was a seven-year period in the 2010s when it had none. And the number of destroyers has halved to six while the frigate fleet has been slashed from 60 to just 11.

Diminished state

The Royal Navy faced criticism for the time it took to send the HMS Dragon destroyer to the Middle East after the war with Iran broke out. Though naval officials worked night and day to get it shipshape for a different mission than the one it was readying for, to many it symbolized the extent to which Britain’s military has been gutted since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

For much of the Cold War, Britain was spending between 4% and 8% of its annual national income on its military. After the Cold War, that proportion steadily dropped to a low of 1.9% of GDP in 2018, fuel to Trump's fire.

Like other countries, Britain, largely under the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, sought to use the so-called “peace dividend” following the collapse of the Soviet Union to divert money earmarked for defense to other priorities, such as health and education.

And the austerity measures imposed by the Conservative-led government in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008-9 prevented any pickup in defense spending despite the clear signs of a resurgent Russia, especially after its annexation of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.

No quick fix

In the wake of Russia's full-blown invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and with another Middle East war underway, there's a growing understanding across the political divide that the cuts have gone too far.

Following the Ukraine invasion, the Conservatives started to turn the military spending tide around. Since the Labour Party returned to power in 2024, Starmer is seeking to ramp up British defense spending, partly at the cost of cutting the country's long-vaunted aid spending.

Starmer has promised to raise UK defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027, and the updated goal is now for it to rise to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, as part of a NATO agreement pushed by Trump. That, in plain terms, will mean tens of billions pounds more being spent — a lot more kit for the armed forces.

The pressure is on for the government to speed that schedule up. But with the public finances further imperiled by the economic consequences of the Iran war, it's not clear where any additional money will come.

The jibes will likely keep coming even though the critiques are unfair and far from the truth, said RUSI's Rowlands, who was a captain in the Royal Navy.

“We are dealing with an administration that doesn’t do nuance,” he said.


Back to Israeli Occupation of South Lebanon?

Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)
Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Back to Israeli Occupation of South Lebanon?

Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)
Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)

A month into Israel's war against Hezbollah, invading Israeli troops are gradually advancing in south Lebanon, raising fears for the area's fate following the last Israeli occupation that lasted nearly two decades.

Since war erupted last month, Israeli officials have said Israel intends to establish a "security zone" inside Lebanon.

More recently, Defense Minister Israel Katz said the military "will establish itself in a security zone inside Lebanon ... and will maintain security control over the entire area up to the Litani" river, around 30 kilometers (20 miles) from the border.

What is happening on the ground and how far could Israel go?

- What's happening in south Lebanon? -

The Israeli military previously issued unprecedented evacuation orders for swathes of the country's south, where Iran-backed Hezbollah holds sway.

An Israeli military source told AFP that four army divisions are currently deployed across the country's northern border.

A Western military source in south Lebanon said "the Israelis are advancing one axis at a time" and destroying border villages as they go.

The source told AFP on condition of anonymity that Israeli forces had taken the strategic town of Khiam, located along the eastern stretch of the shared border.

Hezbollah, which drew Lebanon into the Middle East war last month with rocket fire towards Israel, has been claiming repeated attacks on Israeli troops in south Lebanon, where Israel's military says 10 soldiers have been killed in combat.

The Iran-backed group is not halting Israeli troops' advance "but is seeking symbolic victories such as the destruction of Merkava tanks", the Western military source said.

David Wood, senior Lebanon analyst at the International Crisis Group, told AFP that as Israel pushes further inside Lebanon, "it is entering a style of warfare that might actually suit Hezbollah better, in this sort of guerrilla hit-and-run style of fighting".

Lebanon's army has announced troop "repositioning and redeployment" in parts of the south where Israel is advancing.

A Lebanese military source said Israeli soldiers have advanced up to 10 kilometers (six miles) in some places, and Lebanon's army, which has limited means, fears it will be targeted or encircled.

Israeli fire has killed one on-duty Lebanese soldier.

United Nations peacekeepers deployed in south Lebanon have been powerless to stop the fighting, with three of their troops also killed.

- What does Israel want? -

Katz has said Israel would control south Lebanon up to the Litani, and vowed that hundreds of thousands of south Lebanon residents will not return until northern Israel's security is guaranteed.

Lebanese Defense Minister Michel Menassa this week denounced "a clear intention to impose a new occupation of Lebanese territory".

UN aid chief Tom Fletcher has warned that south Lebanon could become another occupied territory in the Middle East.

But Eyal Zisser, a Lebanon expert at Tel Aviv University, cautioned against taking Katz's announcements at face value.

"He's good at making statements, but you always have to check first of all if it is in full agreement" with what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, he told AFP's Jerusalem bureau.

Netanyahu has ordered troops to "further expand" a so-called security zone in south Lebanon "to definitively neutralize the threat of invasion (by Hezbollah) and to keep anti-tank missile fire away from the border".

Military analyst and retired Lebanese army general Khalil Helou told AFP that Hezbollah has "recruited people from southern towns" for decades, giving the group "local power" that Israel fears could be further exploited if southerners return.

- New occupation? -

Israel has previously tried to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Following a first invasion in 1978, Israeli troops returned four years later, entering Lebanon all the way to Beirut to drive out Palestinian fighters.

Hezbollah was born in response to the 1982 invasion.

Israel withdrew gradually but kept an area up to 20 kilometers deep inside Lebanese territory until 2000, when it pulled out under persistent pressure from Hezbollah.

Lebanese are increasingly concerned about a return to a similar scenario.

In its last war with Hezbollah and even after a November 2024 ceasefire, Israeli troops damaged or destroyed swathes of border villages and towns through strikes, controlled demolitions and the wrecking of agricultural areas.

Zisser said Israel maintaining control of the area south of the Litani was technically feasible.

"But you need to make a decision and you need to decide how to do it, (whether) to occupy the entire territory and establish yourself there" or not, he said.

Wood meanwhile cautioned that an occupation would create "new security threats" for Israel.

"If Israel denies people the right to return to their ancestral homes, then armed resistance groups will emerge or will continue to take up this struggle," he said.