With the escalation of Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon and threats ordering residents of Beirut’s Dahiyeh to evacuate, developments on the ground along the northern front of occupied Palestine have entered a more sensitive stage. In the view of many observers, this stage is not confined to Lebanon’s borders and could carry consequences far beyond a localized confrontation. At the same time, as the Israeli regime has increased its military activity and expanded its attacks on Lebanese cities and civilian areas, Iran’s declared positions have added to the significance and sensitivity of these developments. According to reports, these positions led the Israeli regime to back down and postpone an attack on Dahiyeh. In a hurried post on X, Trump claimed, “no forces will be sent to Beirut, and any forces that may be on the way will be turned back. Hezbollah will also stop the shooting, and Israel will not attack them.”
In an interview with Nournews, Mohammad Ali Mohtadi, senior Middle East analyst and senior researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies of the Middle East, described the Israeli regime’s recent threat against Beirut’s Dahiyeh as part of a broader expansionist and crisis-generating approach. He stressed that the continuation of this trend could lead to a widening of conflicts across the region.
He said, “the Israeli regime, particularly under its current cabinet composition, is effectively incapable of sustaining its political life without war and crisis. The extremist figures within this cabinet openly advocate approaches rooted in expansionism and the extension of occupation throughout the region. This outlook is not limited to Palestine; it also encompasses Lebanon, Syria, and other parts of the region. Therefore, the threat against Beirut’s Dahiyeh must be analyzed within the framework of this broader policy. The highly extremist figures in the current cabinet, including certain security officials and ministers, openly subscribe to approaches based on the elimination, massacre, and destruction of Palestinians and even Muslims across the region, operating within the framework of the so-called ‘Greater Israel’ concept.”
He added, “this plan explicitly envisions the occupation of vast areas of the region, including parts of Lebanon, Jordan, southern Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Leaders of the Israeli regime have repeatedly spoken about pursuing such a project. Faced with a threat of this magnitude, all countries of the region should naturally have joined the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Axis of Resistance in a broad effort to confront the Israeli regime’s expansionism and the destructive plans of Netanyahu’s cabinet.”
He continued, “what is taking place in Lebanon today cannot be separated from the broader trajectory of developments in Gaza. The Israeli regime is simultaneously pursuing two complementary tracks: first, intensifying military and humanitarian pressure on the people of Gaza; and second, expanding its aggression in southern Lebanon while increasing pressure on the resistance there. In Gaza, a vast portion of the territory is under unprecedented pressure, and millions are enduring the hardships of displacement and siege. In Lebanon, a similar process, albeit with different characteristics, is underway.”
According to the senior Middle East analyst, following the declaration of a ceasefire, Hezbollah honored the agreement for months. During the same period, however, the Israeli regime continued attacking southern Lebanon, destroying homes in various villages and targeting vehicles and individuals on roads with drones and missiles, resulting in numerous deaths. This process eventually reached a point where Hezbollah decided to respond and prevent the battlefield equation from remaining one-sided.
Shifts on Lebanese Front and Message Behind Threat to Dahiyeh
Mohtadi went on to discuss Hezbollah’s response, stating that the movement’s reaction has not been merely limited or symbolic but has been pursued on multiple operational levels.
He added, “at various points, Hezbollah used heavy missiles to target Israeli settlements and several key cities in northern occupied Palestine, including Nahariya, Haifa, and the outskirts of Tel Aviv. In recent weeks, Hezbollah has also employed a new method, using small aerial drones guided by fiber-optic systems to attack large numbers of tanks, armored personnel carriers, and gatherings of occupation forces. These systems cannot be tracked or detected, which has caught the Israeli regime by surprise.”
He said, “these developments prompted Tel Aviv to broaden the scope of its aggressive behavior and attempt to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Within this framework, it has completely destroyed around 80 towns and villages, demolished homes, and displaced their residents. In recent days, the scope of these operations has expanded toward more significant areas of Lebanon, and cities such as Tyre and Nabatieh have not been spared. The Israeli regime is now taking actions without precedent, including threatening to evacuate and bomb Beirut’s southern suburbs, a predominantly Shiite area of great importance.”
The senior Middle East analyst emphasized, “the recent threat against Beirut’s Dahiyeh is significant because Dahiyeh is not merely a geographic area. Politically, socially, and from a security perspective, it is one of the key nodes in Lebanon’s domestic equations as well as broader regional dynamics.”
He added, “if the Israeli regime chooses to carry out this threat, it is only natural that the level of response will rise beyond its current scope.”
Within this context, Mohtadi referred to the concept of the “Unity of Fronts” or “Unity of Arenas,” an idea previously articulated by the late Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. He explained that the concept is based on the premise that if one component of the Axis of Resistance comes under attack in a particular arena, the other arenas will also act in its support. The experience of recent months, he noted, has demonstrated that this framework is not merely theoretical but can also serve as a basis for practical decision-making.
He observed, “just as various resistance fronts became active in support of Gaza following the events of October 7, there is now a possibility that if pressure on Lebanon, and especially on Beirut’s Dahiyeh—reaches a dangerous level, other actors may also enter the field. Under such circumstances, developments can no longer be analyzed solely within the framework of a limited confrontation between Hezbollah and the Israeli regime.”
Iran’s Message, Role of UN Security Council, and Possibility of a Wider Conflict
In another part of his remarks, Mohtadi addressed Iran’s response to the recent threats against Lebanon.
He said, “the positions declared by Tehran, along with the warnings issued by certain responsible institutions and by Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters, convey a clear message: aggression against Lebanon and threats against Beirut’s Dahiyeh cannot remain without consequences.”
He added, “the suspension of negotiations and message exchanges with the United States through intermediaries should also be assessed within this framework. It indicates that the Islamic Republic of Iran is redefining the level of its response in accordance with developments on the ground. Under such circumstances, Ansarallah may also become involved and close the Bab al-Mandab Strait. It is evident what severe global economic consequences the closure of such a strategic waterway would entail. For this reason, the international community must pressure the Israeli regime to retreat and abandon these actions.”
Responding to a question about whether international pressure and efforts by certain European countries, including France, to raise the issue at the UN Security Council could prevent further Israeli aggression, he said, “historical experience has shown that this regime has never paid serious attention to Security Council resolutions. Since the establishment of the Israeli regime, numerous resolutions have been issued against it, yet in many cases they have either gone unenforced or been rendered ineffective through US vetoes. For example, following the Six-Day War of June 1967, the Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which required the Israeli regime to withdraw from occupied territories. Additional resolutions, including Resolution 338, followed, but none were implemented. To this day, the West Bank and the Golan Heights remain under Israeli occupation, and the regime continues its occupation policies.”
He stressed, “accordingly, even if the issue of the recent aggressions is brought before the Security Council, one cannot expect a genuine change in Tel Aviv’s behavior to result merely from political and diplomatic condemnations. In its calculations, the Israeli regime pays far more attention to realities on the ground and operational costs than to verbal pressure or international statements. Therefore, any effective deterrence must also be defined at that level.”
Mohtadi also referred to Iran’s warnings regarding the evacuation of settlements in northern occupied Palestine, stating, “Such messages indicate that if the aggression continues, the scope of the response could extend beyond its current level. If the escalation persists, the likelihood of actors such as Yemen’s Ansarallah becoming active will increase. In that case, the issue will no longer be confined to the borders of Lebanon and occupied Palestine; shipping routes, strategic waterways, and regional, and even global, economic interests could also be affected.”
In conclusion, he emphasized, “the current situation in the region is highly fluid, and developments are unfolding in stages. At each stage, the next step will be determined according to the nature of the responses and their outcomes. If political, diplomatic, and mediation efforts fail and the Israeli regime persists in its aggression, the possibility of events moving toward a broader regional war will increase significantly, a war that would not remain confined to a single front and could also impose substantial costs on the United States and its allies.”
NOURNEWS