Following Hezbollah’s attack on Israel on March 2 and Israel’s subsequent military response, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) re-entered southern Lebanon to curb the threat posed by the group and to pressure it toward disarmament or reduced hostile activity. The incursion aimed to prevent future Hezbollah attacks on northern Israeli towns and to possibly pave the way for improved relations between Israel and the Lebanese government.

However, the strategic benefits of continued military operations in southern Lebanon have become increasingly questioned since the ceasefire between Israel, Iran, and Hezbollah was established on April 7, and even more so after a US-Terahn framework agreement signed last week. While the IDF has maintained and gained control over several tactical positions—such as Ali Taher Ridge near Nabatiya, and areas around Tibnin and Tyre—questions have emerged regarding whether these advances translate into meaningful strategic progress.

Israeli defense officials acknowledge that fully disarming Hezbollah through force alone remains unfeasible without a full-scale occupation of Lebanon, a scenario neither strategically nor politically viable. Successes such as the destruction of Hezbollah tunnels and the elimination of several hundred fighters have been acknowledged as tactical gains. Yet these actions have not yet delivered clear strategic achievements or significantly diminished Hezbollah’s capacity or intent to threaten Israel.

Complicating the situation are internal Israeli concerns over the domestic political imperative to demonstrate resolve. Some analysts suggest that continued operations in southern Lebanon after the April ceasefire may have been influenced by a desire to avoid perceptions of weakness following the October 7 attacks from Gaza and elsewhere. This has raised a debate about whether aggressive post-ceasefire advances have resulted in tactical wins but at the expense of broader strategic clarity.

The ongoing confrontations have seen a steady exchange of fire, with Hezbollah occasionally violating the ceasefire more frequently than Israel. Notably, recent IDF maneuvers, including trapping Hezbollah fighters underground near Tibnin, provoked a rare larger-scale retaliatory rocket barrage from the group, resulting in casualties among Israeli soldiers. These dynamics have underscored the risks of continued escalation amid an environment constrained by international agreements and diplomatic pressures.

Regarding Hezbollah’s broader threat profile, Iranian support remains steadfast for the group, viewed by Tehran as a critical proxy. Conversely, Iran has shown restraint in expanding its direct influence to conflict zones such as Gaza or the West Bank, where Sunni factions, including Hamas, operate with more transactional and less enduring allegiances. Israeli officials emphasize that while Palestinian groups remain a security challenge, the current threat environment distinguishes significantly from that posed by Hezbollah and Iran.

Looking ahead, Israeli defense circles broadly concur that any withdrawal from southern Lebanon must be premised on securing tangible concessions, even if only modest, such as restrictions on Hezbollah’s armament capabilities. There is consensus that maintaining deterrence, despite its challenges, remains central to Israel’s posture, especially given the limitations imposed by external actors like the United States and Iran, as well as operational constraints.

The critical question facing Israeli policymakers is whether further military advances in southern Lebanon risk costly engagements with limited strategic benefit, or if embracing a comprehensive ceasefire would better serve national security interests under current geopolitical conditions. With tensions persisting and casualties mounting, this calculation remains pivotal as Israel navigates its security challenges on the northern front.