A Calm Before the Storm Between Israel and Lebanon

As soon as he gathers his personal belongings and leaves the White House—where he spent four years as the President of the United States and eight years before that as Vice President—analysts and commentators will begin evaluating the “achievements and failures” of Joe Biden, the 46th U.S. president. They will likely conclude that his most significant act occurred just weeks before entering the White House.

This pivotal event was a loud and surprising one that broke with decades-long presidential traditions: defeating the incumbent presidential candidate in the 2020 election. Biden, however, did not defeat just any president; he defeated the one candidate who almost uniquely in U.S. history returned to the White House after a four-year absence and had won two elections against female Democratic candidates—Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris—but lost the only time he faced a male opponent, Joe Biden.

History will likely record how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, operating from outside the United States—not as a rival or presidential competitor nor even as a congressional counterpart—sabotaged Biden’s Middle East policies and plans, ultimately contributing to Biden’s failure to secure a second presidential term. This intervention by Netanyahu, a foreign leader, is unprecedented in U.S. election history, where presidents typically run for and easily secure a second term.

Netanyahu’s insistence on continuing Israel’s genocidal war, refusing to conclude a prisoner exchange deal (including with Americans), and persisting in his aggression played a key role in the defeat of Biden’s Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s nominee in the presidential elections.

The only partial success Biden might be credited with was his prevention of a broader regional war in the Middle East. He also managed to thwart Netanyahu’s attempts to drag the United States into a military confrontation with Iran. This was evident when Amos Hochstein, Biden’s envoy, brokered a ceasefire agreement on Israel’s northern front with Lebanon. However, this ceasefire did not extend to the southern front, where the war with Hamas in Gaza continued.

Even this achievement, which could have been definitive had Netanyahu pursued a deal with Hamas, now appears fragile. The situation remains volatile, and war could erupt again at any moment. Evidence of this instability is Hochstein’s return to the region less than a month and a half after the ceasefire began. This comes within the 60-day period during which the Israeli occupation forces were expected to fully withdraw from all occupied Lebanese territories. The failure to complete this withdrawal threatens the ceasefire agreement and risks reigniting the conflict.

Fragile Ceasefire on the Northern Front

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, which began at the end of November, has ushered in a calm that seems ominously like the calm before a storm. Several factors support this notion. Over the past 40 days, the ceasefire has not prevented Israel from violating the agreement, whether through continued airstrikes on certain sites or by obstructing displaced southern Lebanese residents from returning to their villages.

Furthermore, there has been no visible indication that the Israeli army has begun withdrawing from Lebanese territory, as stipulated in the agreement. On the contrary, Israeli forces continue to operate in Lebanese lands under the pretext of dismantling tunnels and removing military sites allegedly used by Hezbollah. Israeli reports openly state that the army will not complete its withdrawal before the end of the 60-day ceasefire period.

A report published by Yedioth Ahronoth outlined reasons for the anticipated Israeli delay in withdrawing from occupied southern Lebanon. These include the time required to destroy Hezbollah’s tunnel and missile infrastructure and claims that the Lebanese Army is not yet adequately prepared to assume full responsibility in the southern Litani region. Additionally, the Israeli army is building a new defensive line along the Israel-Lebanon border, including advanced military sites and defense systems, which require an indefinite amount of time to complete. Hochstein’s current mission appears to be negotiating an extension of the period during which Israel can maintain its occupation of Lebanese land.

It is worth noting that all of these factors were evident to both American and Israeli parties during the initial ceasefire negotiations. Yet, as is typical for Israel, it signed the agreement without intending to honor it. Instead, Israel exploited the 60-day period to escape the burden of a losing war, betting now on the reluctance of parties to return to fighting in order to bypass conditions that might have derailed the agreement from the outset.

Biden’s Waning Achievements Amid Rising Tensions

Additional factors unrelated to internal Israeli dynamics suggest that Biden’s accomplishments—whether on Israel’s northern front with Lebanon or his efforts to prevent a regional war—are now in jeopardy. Biden himself, with less than three weeks left in office, is reportedly considering a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This comes despite his earlier efforts to dissuade Israel from such an attack by providing the THAAD missile defense system. Circumstances have shifted since then, including the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the ceasefire with Hezbollah, and the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The seriousness of this development is underscored by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s presentation of detailed proposals for such a strike. Biden, emboldened by what he perceives as political and military successes with Netanyahu, seems less concerned about avoiding confrontation with Iran. He now believes that Iran and its allies are weaker than they were a few months ago, making direct military action against Iran unlikely to trigger a regional war.

For his part, Netanyahu remains unwilling to officially end the war, believing he has successfully fragmented the fronts by securing the ceasefire with Hezbollah. After toppling Assad’s regime, he appears confident that he can impose his will through military force, opening the door to greater control over the Middle East. However, both Biden and Netanyahu, as they near the end of their political careers, fail to recognize the challenges that remain. The Yemeni front remains resilient, Gaza’s resistance continues to hold Israeli captives—both alive and dead—inflicting casualties on Israeli soldiers. Meanwhile, Israel’s ongoing war crimes in Gaza will eventually incur a heavy price, not just for its leaders, officers, and soldiers but also for its global political standing, where it faces mounting accusations of being a criminal state subject to international isolation.

Newton’s Third Law in Play

As per Isaac Newton’s third law of motion—every action has an equal and opposite reaction—Israel’s violations of the ceasefire, particularly its request for an extension of the withdrawal period, could upend the fragile balance at any moment. Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem explicitly warned that military operations might resume before the 60-day period ends, either in response to violations or Israel’s failure to meet its withdrawal deadline.

Moreover, what Israel perceives as a victory in Syria may soon backfire. Ahmad Shar’a’s position of neutrality, claiming Syria will not allow attacks through its territory, contrasts starkly with Israel’s destruction of Syrian military infrastructure and occupation of additional Syrian land. Such contradictions may erode the status quo and reignite the conflict.

In conclusion, the current calm between Israel and Lebanon remains precarious, signaling the potential for a storm to return at any moment, as both sides navigate a tense and fragile ceasefire.