An invasion of Lebanon by Israel would be a “terrible mistake”, creating a war that it could not win, according to the former head of the country's national security council.
Retired Maj Gen Giora Eiland said the huge capabilities of Hezbollah in a long war would create “a terrible devastation to many of the cities of Israel”.
He spoke amid fears that the killing of Hezbollah’s most senior military commander in a rocket attack, as well as a few hours later the assassination of Hamas’s political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, could cause lead to an escalation with devastating consequences for the region.
Britain's Foreign Secretary David Lammy, accompanied by Defence Secretary John Healey, moved on from Qatar to visit Beirut on Thursday in an attempt to help de-escalate the growing crisis.
“If a real war breaks out between Israel and all the forces from the north, then Israel would make a terrible mistake,” Maj Gen Eiland told a Henry Jackson Society think tank webinar.
Hezbollah's massive arsenal of 150,000 Iran-supplied missiles would overwhelm Israel’s sophisticated Iron Dome defences by their sheer numbers and wipeout infrastructure such as power stations, he suggested.
“If we try to fight Hezbollah, it will be disaster for Israel,” he said, pointing out that the country was “fully dependent on very advanced and modern infrastructure” for its economy.
“So, if such a war continues over many, many months, Israel will lose this war,” he said.
Peace negotiator
Maj Gen Eiland played a significant role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in the 1990s accompanying the then foreign minister Shimon Peres in discussion with Yasser Arafat.
Previously, he served in the Israeli forces for 33 years, fighting in several operations, before heading the national security council under Ariel Sharon.
Before the October 7 attacks he called for Hamas to be recognised by Israel as the government in Gaza. While he opposed the Israeli invasion of Gaza last year, also calling it a “terrible mistake”, he received much criticism for suggesting a civilian epidemic in the territory would help the operation.
In the webinar he argued that the only course of action available if it decided on attacking would be not just against Hezbollah but the whole state of Lebanon, with the intent to foment a civil war between the factions. Israel would also seek to destroy Lebanon’s infrastructure of communications, seaports, transportation and energy sites, “and the city of Beirut will look like the city of Gaza”.
While he did not advocate war, and did not believe it was inevitable, the only “way to win” was to “cause much more terrible devastation in Lebanon”, he said.
Meanwhile, a leading analyst has told The National that the killing of Hezbollah's Fouad Shukr was “at the very upper end” of provocation by Israel, falling just short of starting an all-out war.
Dr Jonathan Spyer said the killing had been “carefully calibrated” by Israel that was “not quite the volume to necessitate a massive Hezbollah response”.
Both Iran and Hezbollah, which takes its orders from Tehran, have vowed retaliation but Dr Spyer argued that despite the high stakes this was unlikely to lead to a major escalation.
“The killing of Shukr in Beirut is at the very upper end of an act which can be carried out without necessitating or making all-out war inevitable,” said the director of research at the Middle East Forum, a US-based think tank.
It was still the analysis by both sides that a further deterioration to war was not in their interests, he added.
However, the rocket strike in the heart of the Hezbollah-controlled Dahieh area of Beirut was certainly an “intensification” reaching far beyond the southern border area of Lebanon.
That Mr Shukr was precisely targeted also pointed to Israel having a very senior agent within Hezbollah who could pinpoint his location in Beirut, he added.
He said the strike could be seen as “appropriate” retaliation to Hezbollah’s killing of twelve children in a rocket strike in northern Israel on Monday.
But if the Israelis had assassinated the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, this “would have necessitated a much bigger response” from Hezbollah, likely leading to war, he said.
Hezbollah cull
While Maj Gen Eiland said targeting specific senior individuals in Hezbollah, was “not going to deter anyone” from continued attacks, Dr Spyer argued that an “astonishing culling” of its leaders was occurring.
While few Israeli soldiers had been killed in northern Israel “a lot of very senior Hezbollah, people are being taken off the board”, since the October 7 attacks.
“An astonishing culling of senior Hezbollah commanders is taking place, and the Israeli intelligence coverage is extremely impressive,” he said.
“Lebanese friends tell me that Hezbollah’s leaders are trying to take all kinds of precautions, not using telephones or electronic goods but in the meantime Israel is still killing them.”
However, the point of escalation will come in how Hezbollah now responds, he said adding that previous senior level assassinations within the organisation had “not resulted in very major responses”.
Ultimately, if the Gaza fighting stopped “they’ll stop too”, but no solution was imminent, he said.
Meanwhile, Iran does not want all-out war for fear of Hezbollah, its “jewel in the crown”, being destroyed and did not to be “distracted prematurely” from its strategy of ultimately destroying Israel, said Dr Spyer.
Iran also did not want to save its “junior partner” Hamas over Hezbollah because “to use a chess analogy, do you want to sacrifice a knight to save a pawn?”
“The Iranians are doing well in the region,” he added. “They've been pushing ahead very significantly over the last decade in all kinds of ways.”
Maj Gen Eiland agreed, adding that it was “not an exaggeration” that Lebanon was controlled by Iran and the current level of conflict was “exactly what Iran wants today” with Israel in a “long, unsolved attritional war”.
