Israel has conducted airstrikes in southern Lebanon on September 19, 2025, targeting sites linked to Hezbollah. These events align with escalating tensions, including recent Israeli operations in Syria, Yemen, and Qatar, amid U.S.-brokered disarmament talks for Hezbollah. What is your most up-to-date and in-depth assessment?
ME-100,Chief of Middle East:
Here’s my most current, layered assessment of what’s happening with the Israeli strikes, Hezbollah, and the disarmament efforts — what drives them, what the obstacles are, who gains or loses, and what this portends for the region. If you want, I can also run through possible trajectories.
What we know now
The Strikes and Military Pressure
- On September 18–19, 2025, Israel carried out a wave of air‐strikes on multiple towns in southern Lebanon, targeting what it describes as Hezbollah military infrastructure — specifically weapons depots, infrastructure tied to its Radwan force (elite units), and sites where Hezbollah is suspected of rebuilding after earlier losses. وكالة صدى نيوز+3The Times of Israel+3Reuters+3
- These strikes came with evacuation orders in some areas beforehand. The Times of Israel+1
- Lebanese authorities report civilian casualties (at least one killed in some strikes), claim a large number of “ceasefire violations,” and argue these strikes are undermining disarmament efforts. Arab News+2Reuters+2
Political / Diplomatic Pressure
- Lebanon’s government, under growing U.S. pressure, has endorsed (or at least is preparing) a plan to disarm Hezbollah, especially in areas near the Israeli border. Arab Center Washington DC+4Arab News+4The Financial Express+4
- Hezbollah leadership continues to resist full disarmament, demanding reciprocal Israeli withdrawal from “occupied positions” in southern border areas, and maintaining that their weapons are needed as deterrence against Israel. Arab News+2Al Estiklal+2
- U.S. envoys are engaging with Lebanese officials on disarmament. At the same time, Israeli strikes (inside Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, even Qatar) are being used both as military operations and political leverage. Reuters+4The Financial Express+4Al Jazeera+4
Hezbollah’s Regional Positioning
- Hezbollah is attempting to recalibrate its political posture: making overtures toward Saudi Arabia, emphasizing that its weapons are directed only at Israel, and seeking to draw in regional Arab actors to its side, or at least reduce isolation. AP News+1
- Domestically, it is under pressure: from the Lebanese Army, public opinion, economic collapse, and international actors. But it still retains deep political, social, and military roots inside Lebanon. Atlantic Council+2Council on Foreign Relations+2
Underlying Drivers & Stakes
To make sense of this pressure cooker, here are the primary dynamics:
- Deterrence vs. Disarmament Bargain
Israel wants Hezbollah’s military capabilities degraded further, reducing its ability to launch rockets, drone / missile assets, cross-border attacks. Hezbollah wants to preserve deterrence: its arms stockpile is central to its identity, its leverage, and its perceived ability to defend Shia communities in Lebanon and project resistance vs. Israel. - U.S. Leverage & Regional Diplomacy
The U.S. is pushing for a disarmament plan — both to stabilize southern Lebanon, limit cross-border escalation, and perhaps to reduce Israel’s need for military intervention. But U.S. leverage is limited: Hezbollah has strong backing from Iran; Lebanon’s state institutions are fragile; there’s strong domestic opposition among Hezbollah’s base; and security fears persist. - Escalation Risk
Every Israeli strike raises the risk of retaliation — direct or via proxies — which could spiral. There is also risk of spillover: into Syria, Iraq, Yemen. The strikes in Qatar (against Hamas leadership) added a different dimension: they signal Israel is expanding its targeting beyond immediate border zones when it deems strategic opportunity worth the diplomatic cost. AP News+2Al Jazeera+2 - Legitimacy, Sovereignty, and Political Position Inside Lebanon
Hezbollah must maintain credibility with its constituents that it is resisting Israel, not cowed into submission. If disarmament happens without guarantees (say, Israeli withdrawal, or guarantees of Lebanese state control and ability to defend itself), Hezbollah risks losing support or being seen as capitulating. On the other side, the Lebanese government, already weakened economically and institutionally, wants foreign aid, reconstruction, political stability, which increasingly demand progress on disarmament and control of armed non-state actors. - Historical Cycles (“Oscillation Lens”)
This is not new. Over decades, there have been cycles of escalation, partial containment, ceasefires, rebuilding, renewed strikes, etc. Each war or confrontation leaves Hezbollah weakened and damaged, but also often stronger in popular narrative among Lebanese Shia as defenders, especially when state structures fail. External support from Iran, shifting alliances, and internal Lebanese fragmentation perpetuate the cycle.
What’s Working and What’s Not
Advantages for Israel and its Supporters:
- Military pressure seems effective in degrading some Hezbollah capabilities, forcing them to rebuild with more difficulty, moving arsenals underground, etc.
- Diplomatic leverage: international pressure on Lebanon is increasing; there’s growing legitimacy for demanding Lebanese state monopoly over arms (at least near the border).
- Psychological / signaling value: frequent air-strikes demonstrate resolve, may deter Hezbollah to some extent from large scale retaliation.
Constraints and Downsides:
- Strikes cause civilian harm, which generates condemnation from international community, possibly weakening legitimacy of Israeli actions or the U.S. supporting them. This gives Hezbollah propaganda advantages.
- Hezbollah is unlikely to disarm voluntarily unless it perceives existential threat or unless a credible security arrangement is made (including Israeli withdrawal, or international guarantees).
- Lebanon’s government is weak; domestic politics are fragile. Moves toward disarmament are contested by Hezbollah’s allies. Some Shiite ministers have walked out of governments; internal divisions are deep. Geopolitical Monitor+1
- Escalation risk is ever present. A miscalculation — a strike that kills civilians, or a Hezbollah response — can spiral beyond the intended scope.
Who Benefits & Who Loses
Beneficiaries:
- Israel (and its allies): gains in military leverage, domestic political bonus from showing strength, possibly forced concessions or reduced threats from Hezbollah in border areas.
- U.S.: if disarmament is achieved, even partially, it scores a diplomatic win—stability in Lebanon, less regional warfare, less need for direct intervention.
- Some Lebanese actors who wish for stabilization and reconstruction, including non-Hezbollah political figures, who want foreign aid and normalcy.
- Iran / Hezbollah benefit if they can show resilience: surviving Israeli pressure, maintaining credibility of resistance, positioning themselves as indispensable defenders of Lebanese sovereignty vs Israel.
Losers:
- Civilians in southern Lebanon: due to displacement, casualties, damage to infrastructure.
- Lebanese State institutions: if caught in the cross-fire, or if Hezbollah resists disarmament, government may lose control, legitimacy eroded.
- Israel also faces diplomatic cost: criticism from international community, risk of being overextended militarily, possible blowback via sanctions or diplomatic isolation (though currently support remains strong in many quarters).
What It Suggests About the Disarmament Talks’ Viability & Likely Outcomes
Given all this, here are what I see as likeliest scenarios / conclusions for the near and medium term:
- Partial Disarmament / Containment rather than Full Disarmament
Full disarmament is extremely unlikely without major concessions (like Israeli withdrawal from contested zones, stronger Lebanese Army / international force, credible security guarantees). More likely is a “buffer zone” or partial control: Hezbollah forced to reduce visible depots near border, move infrastructure underground, but retains substantial missile/deterrent capability further inland. - More Military Pressure to Force Bargaining
Israel will persist in strikes to erode Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, especially those that are exposed. The idea is to ratchet down Hezbollah’s capabilities until it has to accept more stringent conditions. - Diplomatic Deal with Conditions
U.S. and other actors will try to broker a deal in which disarmament is tied to reconstruction aid, international security guarantees, border demilitarization, and possibly greater role / funding for the Lebanese Army. Money, international legitimacy, and foreign investment will be used as levers. - Risk of Escalation Remains High
Mis‐steps, retaliatory attacks, or external events (e.g. strikes in Yemen, Syria) could provoke a larger flare-up. Hezbollah may be deterred from open warfare but could use proxy actions or asymmetric responses (rockets, cross-border fire) to maintain credibility. Iran will monitor carefully; its support is a crucial factor. - Domestic Lebanese Politics Will Be Decisive
How strong the Lebanese government is, how unified in demand for Hezbollah to comply, and whether institutions like UNIFIL can function effectively will be decisive. Hezbollah’s political allies likely will try to block or delay any disarmament plan that seems to weaken Hezbollah disproportionately without compensations.
My Projection: What Comes Next
- Over the next 3-6 months, expect an intensification of Israeli strikes especially in southern Lebanon and border areas. More evacuation warnings; more targeting of Radwan force sites.
- Expect Lebanon (especially under U.S. pressure) to issue more formal plans for arms monopoly/ border control; some small successes: seizures of arms caches; removal of visible Hezbollah infrastructure near the border.
- But Hezbollah will resist on areas farther away; will continue to push narrative of defense; may respond with intermittent cross-border fire to signal that disarmament must come with guarantees.
- Long term (1-2 years), you might see a negotiated framework: a partial disarmament, increased role and funding for LAF and UNIFIL / international peacekeeping, possibly a buffer zone near border monitored by international actors. But Hezbollah will retain much of its deterrent capacity, especially in more protected areas.
If you like, I can map out three concrete scenarios (best case, worst case, middle) for how this could evolve by end of 2026.
Welcome to the Middle East, where everything changes, yet nothing does.
ME-100, Chief of Middle East
Three Corporate