The coming 24 hours will prove crucial along the Israeli-Lebanese frontier as both sides engage in final military operations before the expected implementation of a new security arrangement. Historical patterns suggest an intensification of activities as both parties seek to establish favorable positions before the agreement takes effect.
This dynamic is likely to manifest in increased rocket attacks targeting Israeli territory and extensive Israeli Air Force operations across Lebanon. The civilian population will need to maintain strict adherence to security protocols to prevent casualties, while military activities have already intensified, as evidenced by Monday's strikes against Hezbollah positions in Beirut and reported Israeli operations along the Lebanese-Syrian border, targeting previously identified threats.
With cabinet approval expected today, the agreement is slated to commence Wednesday. The IDF will suspend air and naval strikes against Lebanon while maintaining surveillance operations over Lebanese airspace and waters. Ground operations in southern Lebanon will see significant reduction – with thousands of reservists already demobilized – though strategic positions will remain manned to prevent infiltration attempts and ensure Hezbollah doesn't exploit the cessation of hostilities to reestablish positions in southern Lebanon.
A 60-day transition period will see the US Central Command (CENTCOM) closely monitoring implementation. American officers will maintain direct communication channels with both IDF and Lebanese Army commanders, serving as intermediaries for grievances. While French military observers were initially proposed, Israel withheld approval pending France's retraction of its stance regarding International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant.
The agreement builds upon UN Security Council Resolution 1701, enacted following the 2006 Lebanon War. Its primary objectives include preventing Hezbollah's return to southern Lebanon and halting the organization's military expansion and weapons production within Lebanese territory. Reinforced Lebanese Army units and UNIFIL forces are tasked with enforcement, though Israel retains full operational freedom should violations occur. The established protocol suggests Israeli complaints would first go through American monitors, with military action reserved for instances where diplomatic channels prove ineffective.
The arrangement offers significant strategic advantages while carrying certain risks. Its strengths include ending hostilities with Israel in a clearly superior position, having dealt Hezbollah substantial military setbacks, while averting potential international sanctions. American engagement as guarantors, decoupling of Lebanon from the Gaza conflict, and enabling Israel to focus on hostage recovery represent key diplomatic achievements. Additionally, the agreement allows for military reorganization, reducing strain on reserve and regular forces while conserving munitions. Perhaps most significantly, it presents an opportunity to diminish both Hezbollah's and Iran's influence in Lebanon.
Remaining Challenges
The agreement's limitations are notable: it neither eliminates the military threat to northern communities entirely nor dismantles Hezbollah's organizational structure. The group retains both political and military capabilities, likely to seek opportunities for rebuilding its arsenal and presence in southern Lebanon. Consequently, Israel may face periodic military engagements to counter violations, potentially triggering retaliatory strikes against northern communities.
While northern community leaders' calls for a formal buffer zone in southern Lebanon weren't met, the IDF maintains that its operational methodology, force deployment, and border security measures will effectively protect northern residents and prevent Hezbollah's return to border areas. However, regional rehabilitation extends beyond security considerations: this requires comprehensive government action, including substantial economic investment and addressing chronic deficiencies in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and social services.
The agreement represents a strategic opportunity for Israel to conclude operations under favorable conditions, though its effectiveness will be determined by future developments. Strict enforcement could secure extended stability in the north; inadequate implementation risks accelerating the next conflict. Despite criticism suggesting military pressure for the agreement, this remains fundamentally a political decision: the Israeli government bears responsibility for both its execution and potential breakdown.
