One year after the so-called “ceasefire” between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah began, Israel could be set to renew full-scale hostilities against the group, further confirming that the agreement is anything but a real cessation of hostilities. Indeed, the context of Lebanon offers a clear case that Israel and Washington’s “peace through strength” approach—code for overt aggression against real and perceived enemies to achieve short-term tactical policy victories as opposed to major strategic wins—will not seriously alter today’s geopolitical makeup in the Middle East without a serious reassessment.

To be sure, efforts to disarm Lebanon, let alone south of the Litani River—as stipulated in the faulty ceasefire—was always one of the most difficult issues in an already issue-plagued Middle East. Still, per the November 2024 agreement, both Hezbollah and Israel were to evacuate their forces and military assets from Lebanon’s south, ceasing fire on each other’s positions and broader civilian locations. As the thinking went, Hezbollah had been weakened to the point that Israel could step back and achieve sustainable gains in the country and against one of its non-state nemeses.

Rather, Israel refused to leave five key points along the disputed Israel-Lebanon border, opting to continue near-daily strikes on its northern neighbor—including in southern Beirut—amid sporadic incursions into south Lebanon villages and persistent efforts to demolish civilian infrastructure. Israeli political leadership continues to insist that it will not leave sovereign Lebanese territory that it illegally occupies without a full confirmation that Hezbollah........

© The National Interest