Israel’s Targeting of Lebanese Army: ‘Military Error’ or Message to Stay Away from Border?

Lebanese soldiers are seen in the town of Baaloul in the western Bekaa after a strike in the area. (Reuters)
Lebanese soldiers are seen in the town of Baaloul in the western Bekaa after a strike in the area. (Reuters)
TT

Israel’s Targeting of Lebanese Army: ‘Military Error’ or Message to Stay Away from Border?

Lebanese soldiers are seen in the town of Baaloul in the western Bekaa after a strike in the area. (Reuters)
Lebanese soldiers are seen in the town of Baaloul in the western Bekaa after a strike in the area. (Reuters)

Israel’s targeting of Lebanese soldiers and their vehicles has raised questions about its attacks, especially amid discussions about the role the Lebanese army will play after the end of the war with Hezbollah.

Twenty-five Lebanese soldiers have been killed since Hezbollah opened its “support front” for its ally Hamas in Gaza on October 8, 2023. The soldiers were killed while on duty, either in a direct hit or as a result of nearby Israeli attack.

The latest casualties were reported on Sunday. Three soldiers were killed when Israel directly struck their vehicle in the Ain Ebel region.

The Israeli military issued an apology on Monday, saying it did not know that the vehicle it was targeting belonged to the army.

Israel said it struck a truck on Sunday that had entered an area where it had previously targeted a Hezbollah truck transporting a launcher and missiles. It said its soldiers were not aware that the second truck belonged to the Lebanese army.

It added that it is “not operating against the Lebanese Army and apologizes for these unwanted circumstances.”

Around ten days ago, Israel also targeted a Lebanese army position in the Kafra region in the South, leaving two soldiers dead. It again said it did not know that Lebanese troops were stationed in the area.

The Israeli statements do not clear it of the responsibility of killing the soldiers, especially when Israel is already crossing all red lines, a military source told Asharq Al-Awsat.

The repeated attacks against the Lebanese army “could be a message from Israel to limit its movement and deployment of its forces at the southern border.” This is a similar tactic Israel is using with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Israel wants to establish a buffer zone in the South and is adopting a scorched-earth policy. Nothing can stand in its way and it sees no red lines to stop it from pursuing its goal, added the source.

Some 4,500 soldiers are deployed in the South to primarily monitor the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1701 and the violations against it.

The soldiers moved back between 3 to 4 kms when Israel escalated its attacks against Hezbollah earlier this month, said the source.

Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati had declared earlier this month that he had tasked Army Commander Joseph Aoun with “doing what he sees fit to protect Lebanon and its military institution given the Israeli assault on Lebanon.”

Retired General Walid Aoun said: “There doesn’t seem to be any clear decision by Israel to attack the Lebanese army.”

In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, he noted that during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, the former struck an army barracks in the al-Jomhour region after claiming that it suspected it be a rocket base. Over 20 soldiers were killed in the attack.

“Israel is determined to achieve its goals and so it will not take into account other factors. So, if the army happens to be deployed near its targets, it will not hesitate in making the strike, regardless of the consequences,” he explained.

However, he expressed his concern over the negative impact the strikes will have on the army should they continue, seeing as the military will have a main role to play in the implementation of resolution 1701 in the South when the conflict is over.

Moreover, he explained that the role of the army is stipulated by the political powers and government. They task it with its duties. “As of yet, the army has not been tasked with confronting the enemy,” Aoun remarked.



Iran Faces Tough Choices in Deciding How to Respond to Israeli Strikes

This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
TT

Iran Faces Tough Choices in Deciding How to Respond to Israeli Strikes

This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)

It's Iran's move now.
How Iran chooses to respond to the unusually public Israeli aerial assault on its homeland could determine whether the region spirals further toward all-out war or holds steady at an already devastating and destabilizing level of violence.
In the coldly calculating realm of Middle East geopolitics, a strike of the magnitude that Israel delivered Saturday would typically be met with a forceful response. A likely option would be another round of the ballistic missile barrages that Iran has already launched twice this year, The Associated Press said.
Retaliating militarily would allow Iran's clerical leadership to show strength not only to its own citizens but also to Hamas in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah, the militant groups battling Israel that are the vanguard of Tehran's so-called Axis of Resistance.
It is too soon to say whether Iran's leadership will follow that path.
Tehran may decide against forcefully retaliating directly for now, not least because doing so might reveal its weaknesses and invite a more potent Israeli response, analysts say.
“Iran will play down the impact of the strikes, which are in fact quite serious,” said Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the London-based think tank Chatham House.
She said Iran is “boxed in" by military and economic constraints, and the uncertainty caused by the US election and its impact on American policy in the region.
Even while the Mideast wars rage, Iran's reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian has been signaling his nation wants a new nuclear deal with the US to ease crushing international sanctions.
A carefully worded statement from Iran’s military Saturday night appeared to offer some wiggle room for Iran to back away from further escalation. It suggested that a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon was more important than any retaliation against Israel.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran's ultimate decision-maker, was also measured in his first comments on the strike Sunday. He said the attack “should not be exaggerated nor downplayed,” and he stopped short of calling for an immediate military response.
Saturday's strikes targeted Iranian air defense missile batteries and missile production facilities, according to the Israeli military.
With that, Israel has exposed vulnerabilities in Iran’s air defenses and can now more easily step up its attacks, analysts say.
Satellite photos analyzed by The Associated Press indicate Israel's raid damaged facilities at the Parchin military base southeast of Tehran that experts previously linked to Iran's onetime nuclear weapons program and another base tied to its ballistic missile program.
Current nuclear sites were not struck, however. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirmed that on X, saying “Iran’s nuclear facilities have not been impacted.”
Israel has been aggressively bringing the fight to the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah, killing its leader and targeting operatives in an audacious exploding pager attack.
“Any Iranian attempt to retaliate will have to contend with the fact that Hezbollah, its most important ally against Israel, has been significantly degraded and its conventional weapons systems have twice been largely repelled,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, who expects Iran to hold its fire for now.
That's true even if Israel held back, as appears to be the case. Some prominent figures in Israel, such as opposition leader Yair Lapid, are already saying the attacks didn't go far enough.
Regional experts suggested that Israel's relatively limited target list was intentionally calibrated to make it easier for Iran to back away from escalation.
As Yoel Guzansky, who formerly worked for Israel’s National Security Council and is now a researcher at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, put it: Israel's decision to focus on purely military targets allows Iran "to save face.”
Israel's target choices may also be a reflection at least in part of its capabilities. It is unlikely to be able to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities on its own and would require help from the United States, Guzansky said.
Besides, Israel still has leverage to go after higher-value targets should Iran retaliate — particularly now that nodes in its air defenses have been destroyed.
“You preserve for yourself all kinds of contingency plans,” Guzansky said.
Thomas Juneau, a University of Ottawa professor focused on Iran and the wider Middle East, wrote on X that the fact Iranian media initially downplayed the strikes suggests Tehran may want to avoid further escalation. Yet it's caught in a tough spot.
“If it retaliates, it risks an escalation in which its weakness means it loses more,” he wrote. “If it does not retaliate, it projects a signal of weakness.”
Vakil agreed that Iran's response was likely to be muted and that the strikes were designed to minimize the potential for escalation.
“Israel has yet again shown its military precision and capabilities are far superior to that of Iran,” she said.
One thing is certain: The Mideast is in uncharted territory.
For decades, leaders and strategists in the region have speculated about whether and how Israel might one day openly strike Iran, just as they wondered what direct attacks by Iran, rather than by its proxy militant groups, would look like.
Today, it's a reality. Yet the playbook on either side isn't clear, and may still be being written.
“There appears to be a major mismatch both in terms of the sword each side wields and the shield it can deploy,” Vaez said.
“While both sides have calibrated and calculated how quickly they climb the escalation ladder, they are in an entirely new territory now, where the new red lines are nebulous and the old ones have turned pink,” he said.