Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon: Dahiya Doctrine Revisited |
Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon: Dahiya Doctrine Revisited
Israel’s assault on Lebanon signals the return of the Dahiya Doctrine, where destruction becomes a tool of deterrence. Driven by security fears and power politics, the invasion risks igniting a broader regional firestorm. What unfolds may not secure peace, but deepen instability and humanitarian tragedy across the Middle East.
What is the Dahiya Doctrine?
Not an officially titled military doctrine, the Dahiya — a sinister strategy — was implemented by the Israeli military in Lebanon in 2006 for the first time. In 2006, Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot publicly announced this plan. In 2008, after Israeli forces under his command had decimated the southern Beirut region called the Dahiya using two-thousand-pound bombs and similar munitions, Eizenkot specifically explained what this doctrine entailed.
According to him, “Israel will repeat the events that took place in the Dahiya neighborhood of Beirut in 2006 every time it is targeted. We will use disproportionate force on it, inflicting extensive harm and devastation there. From our perspective, these are military facilities, not civilian communities. This is not a suggestion. This is a strategy.” The Dahiya doctrine includes the use of overwhelming and disproportionate force against civilian infrastructure to collectively punish populations believed to support resistance movements.
“Lebanon is paying the cost of Israel’s strategic defeat in Iran.”
“Lebanon is paying the cost of Israel’s strategic defeat in Iran.”
On 8th April, 2026, soon after the announcement of the US-Iran ceasefire, Israel launched ‘Operation Eternal Darkness’ in Lebanon. Approximately 50 fighter jets entered the Lebanese airspace, dropping 160 bombs over 100 targets in just ten minutes. According to the Lebanon Health Ministry, nearly 254 people have been killed and more than 890 wounded. The attacks were conducted in Southern Lebanon, the Beqaa Valley, and Southern Beirut. This week, Israel’s defense minister issued a statement saying that Israeli forces are attempting to implement the ‘Rafah model’ in southern Lebanon, raising concerns that Israel is intending to destroy entire communities in an effort to permanently crush Hezbollah.
Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “Whenever a king sees that his people are about to revolt against him, he starts a war with another country.” The invasion of Lebanon by Israel is its best manifestation. To divert the attention of its public from the defeat in Iran, Israel is now waging a full-scale war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The attack on Lebanon is grounded on various motives and strategic signals. Although Israel has never been in favor of any ceasefire with Iran, the US has compelled it to do so.
Therefore, through waging war against Lebanon, Israeli PM Netanyahu is conveying a message to the international community that the decision of war and peace is in Israel’s hands. The failure in Iran has been received with much denunciation, and the people have rejoiced over the fact that Iran has achieved a strategic victory against the combined power of the US, Israel, and Gulf states. To create fear and to downgrade the celebration, the invasion of Lebanon became a key trigger point.
Likewise, on one hand, both the US and Iranian officials are preparing for talks in Islamabad this weekend; attacks against Lebanon are an Israeli strategy to fracture Tehran’s ‘Unity of Fields’ — a blow to its resistance movement. In addition, both the US and Israel have been claiming to completely destroy Hezbollah, which once again proved to be wrong when Hezbollah started its rocket campaign against Israel after the killing of the Iranian Supreme Leader.
Hezbollah still stands strong and can interfere with Israeli plans along the border. Attacking civilians is not an asset but a statement of constraints. And lastly, Netanyahu is aware of the fact that negotiations are inevitable. One day the matter will definitely be on the table. Thus, before any such talks, Israel is altering the ground realities to gain an upper hand in dialogues.
The Israeli invasion of Lebanon would lead to many consequences, among them being the failure of the currently existing peace negotiations between the US and Iran in Islamabad. Iran has offered a ten-point peace plan to the US. And among the major demands is to stop aggression toward all the Iranian allies, including Lebanon. Since the representatives of the two sides are convening in Islamabad, Israel is constantly bombing Lebanon, which might ruin the already tense truce. Should it occur, the global economy would then hit a point of no return, and a global recession would occur. Secondly, history is evidence that when resistance movements are being suppressed, they always come up with a greater blow. Hamas in Gaza is its best manifestation.
Despite years-long military campaigns in Gaza, Israel has failed to dismantle Hamas. A sustained occupation may even push Hezbollah’s skeptics in Lebanon to join the resistance. The repetition of the Gaza model in Lebanon could spark another intense regional escalation whose spillover would be felt in adjacent states, in particular Syria and Yemen. As of now, Israel is only targeting Hezbollah. But what about Houthis? They still have the intent and capability to hit Israel. The attack on Hezbollah might make Houthis afraid that they will become the next targets. Therefore, to stop Israeli aggression, Houthis may leverage the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, following the Iranian example. Moreover, any further Gaza-like campaign would only increase antisemitism throughout the world.
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon is none other than the continuation of its strategic defeats on other fronts. Iran has not just defeated Israel but also completely humiliated the US. As of now, the cards are in the hands of an Iranian. If Iran sticks to its demand of halting strikes against Lebanon, the US will be forced to do so. And, if not, the Hormuz will once again be blocked. The humiliation in the Iran war, lessening domestic support, and increasing international condemnation are key pressure points around which the upcoming negotiations would revolve. Up till now, the truce has been fragile, the chances of eternal peace are low, and the region is standing on a very fine line of a major catastrophe.
Taut Bataut is a researcher and writer that publishes on South Asian geopolitics
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel