A report by Israel’s INSS revealed that in facing Hezbollah, Israel will have limited options, most of which would never result in a decisive victory for Israel.
In a comprehensive and analytical report, the Israeli think tank INSS examined the options facing Israel in dealing with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, especially in the field of ground military invasion, most of which would not result in a victory for Israel.
Option 1: Decisive military defeat of Hezbollah
In this scenario, the Israeli army must capture significant parts of Lebanon, as outlined in the “Big Pines” plan from the First Lebanon War, and clear the region of Hezbollah’s infrastructure and operatives. Since Hezbollah is based in most of Lebanon and its two main centers are located far from the border with Israel – in Beirut and the Bekaa Valley – a large area reaching at least the outskirts of Beirut must be captured by Israel and held for a long time under military control.
However, considering the state of manpower and reserves of the Israeli army and the fatigue of their one-year battle in the Gaza war, this option seems impossible. The regular and reserve forces are unable to return to service after a year of war, during which more than 700 soldiers were killed and thousands were injured. Reservists who have been called up have also already served months during 2023 and 2024. Although there is no doubt about their motivation and understanding of the importance of these operations, whether this can be sustained in the long term is questionable.
In addition, the Israeli army is facing a shortage of weapons (platforms, parts, ammunition) needed to wage such a war. Israel’s international legitimacy for this move would also be zero, especially since the current US administration, which is already delaying the delivery of heavy bombs and precision munitions kits, will likely face increasing pressure to withhold further support for this plan.
Option 2: Occupying a large territory and creating a security zone in southern Lebanon
This option has two stages: the first stage is the capture of vast territory in Lebanon, the depth of the area to be captured will be determined by tactical and operational considerations. This means that in this occupation plan, the control of an area with a direct view of the northern settlements of Israel or from areas where anti-tank and heavy missiles can be fired should be achieved for the Israeli army. This requires the removal of all Hezbollah operatives and their infrastructure in that region.
The second step is to create a security zone, similar to the one Israel created in Lebanon in the 1990s. However, it is important to note a fundamental difference between then and now, as the term “security zone” can be misleading.
Until 2000, most of the forces in the security zone created in 1990 were members of the South Lebanese Army (SLA), and the Israeli army had a very small presence there. But considering the unprecedented rise of tensions with Hezbollah, the Israeli army must assume the sole responsibility of maintaining the region for the medium or long term. Maintaining this security zone requires significant military resources (at least at the division level) by strengthening the defense line along international borders while meeting demands on other fronts.
Therefore, while this option allows the residents of the north to return home (although it does not completely remove the threat of precision-guided missiles and drones launched by Hezbollah from deep in Lebanon), the depleted capacity of the Israeli forces will make this option off the table. Furthermore, any notion of any kind of Israeli settlement in southern Lebanon must be completely rejected. Such a move would be disastrous for Israel as it will dramatically increase Israel’s isolation on the global stage.
![Saudi Arabia’s Plastic Policy; “Let the Demands Remain” [Part II]](https://al-sarira.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/222-2-350x250.jpg)
