As soon as the ceasefire between the United States and Iran was reached, Israel launched an unprecedented wave of strikes in Lebanon, as if the truce did not apply to this front. Negotiated without Tel Aviv, this agreement raises questions about both Israel’s room for maneuver and its level of dependence on Washington, as the army is engaged on multiple fronts and faces increasing constraints. In this context, what consequences can this truce have on the Israeli offensive?
Israel is facing multiple military fronts as the ceasefire between the United States and Iran is a “variable geometry” with an “American version” and an “Iranian version,” with the main difference being “the inclusion or exclusion of Israel in the ceasefire,” explains Amélie Ferey. While Tehran believes it also involves stopping Israeli strikes on Lebanese territory, Israel claims it only concerns the Iranian front and continues its offensive with the strategic objective of “creating a buffer zone” in southern Lebanon. However, the strikes go beyond this defensive logic: Operation “Eternal Darkness,” marked by “a hundred strikes in about ten minutes,” illustrates Israel’s willingness to strike massively and rapidly, including deep into Lebanon and up to Beirut.
This military escalation also responds to a logic of reduced strategic window: with the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran, Israel believes it has little time to permanently weaken Hezbollah before a potential regional diplomatic rebalancing. But behind the military logic, a political calculation also emerges. As elections approach, Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to show that he has managed to “address the threat of Hezbollah” and significantly reduce the capabilities of its regional enemies, in a context where several fronts remain open and the results achieved remain incomplete. According to Amélie Ferey, Netanyahu’s objective is to be able to defend the narrative of a leader who has imposed “a new Middle Eastern order” and loosened the Iranian grip, while the opposition criticizes a strategy of permanent war without a clear political solution.
Despite Israel’s technological superiority, the multiplication of fronts is beginning to weigh heavily on the army. Engaged simultaneously in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, facing Iran and the Houthis, it is facing increasing human and logistical pressures. The chief of staff has acknowledged that the Israeli army, designed for “short and decisive wars,” is not structured to sustain multiple long-term conflicts. This military overload is accompanied by growing fatigue in the Israeli population, exhausted by alerts, missile attacks, and the lack of a clear perspective, fueling a diffuse sense of uncertainty about where Israel is headed.
While the military capabilities of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have been “extremely reduced,” this tactical efficiency is not enough to produce a lasting strategic victory. For Amélie Ferey, recent events show that “military objectives, when limited, are within reach of armies,” but that “a military objective can never become a political objective.” In the absence of a structured diplomatic plan, military successes are therefore at risk of losing their meaning and gradually delegitimizing the use of force. Since October 2023, Israel appears to be locked in a logic where the military response dominates without being able to open a true political outcome, illustrating the limits of a strategy almost exclusively based on military power.
