• Israel appears to be revisiting the idea of a security zone in Lebanon, but that policy failed before and is unlikely to succeed now, says Rob Geist Pinfold of King’s College London
• ‘This is not just a war on Hezbollah. The tactics … are collectively punishing the Lebanese population,’ says David Wood of the International Crisis Group
• An invasion will risk dragging Israel into a prolonged and costly occupation that would be difficult to sustain, says Imad Salamey of the Lebanese American University

ISTANBUL

Israel’s rapidly escalating military offensive in Lebanon – framed as a campaign to eliminate Hezbollah – is raising fears that a ground invasion could spiral into a prolonged occupation, widespread displacement and a worsening humanitarian crisis.

Apprehensions have escalated after Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said this week that Israel could take control of large parts of southern Lebanon. He said troops had destroyed bridges over the Litani River and that a security zone would be created, with displaced residents barred from returning.

For many in Lebanon, the remarks sounded like the outline of a longer-term plan. President Joseph Aoun called the move “a dangerous escalation and a blatant violation of Lebanese sovereignty,” warning it could be the prelude to a wider Israeli ground invasion.

Analysts say Israel has long sought an opening to escalate against Hezbollah, and that the regional war with Iran has now provided it.

“They have been waiting for an excuse for quite some time to escalate against Hezbollah,” said Rob Geist Pinfold, an international security expert at King’s College London, adding that previous restraint was largely due to US pressure.

He said Hezbollah’s decision to join the Iran conflict had shifted that balance and played into Israel’s objectives.

Israel has heavily bombed Lebanon and launched a ground offensive in the south after a cross-border missile attack by Hezbollah in early March.

The escalation came after the joint US-Israeli offensive on Iran that began on Feb. 28 and has since widened into a regional conflict. Israel and Hezbollah had already been trading fire across the border since October 2023, following Israel’s war on Gaza, and both sides were accused of violating a November 2024 ceasefire.

The concern now is that Israel’s campaign may be moving beyond immediate military aims toward a strategy that could redraw realities on the ground in southern Lebanon.

Invasion and occupation

David Wood, senior Lebanon analyst at the International Crisis Group, said Israel would have several objectives in a ground invasion.

One, he said, would be to seize territory that could later be used as leverage in negotiations with Lebanon or Hezbollah. Another would be to create a security zone by combining ground troops with Israel’s control of Lebanese airspace, effectively keeping Lebanese residents away from the border area regardless of whether they are linked to Hezbollah.

He said that would amount to an expanded no-go zone across much of southern Lebanon.

But Wood warned Israel might not stop there: “Another concern is that Israel might not actually stop at Litani River, but might actually use that as a staging base to go even further into Lebanon.”

That prospect has alarmed analysts because the Litani is not just a military landmark. It is Lebanon’s largest river and runs through a broad swath of the south, including areas between roughly 6 and 30 kilometers (3.7 to 18.6 miles) from the Israeli border. The territory south of it covers parts of the South and Nabatieh governorates, including Tyre, Bint Jbeil and Marjayoun.

For Wood, the most extreme version of Israel’s strategy would be an attempt to dismantle Hezbollah’s military infrastructure far beyond the border strip.

He said the most “maximalist” way Israel might pursue its goal of eliminating Hezbollah would be to push deeper into Lebanon and target the group’s assets across the country.

That, he warned, would create “absolute chaos” inside Lebanon and carry huge risks for Israel itself, especially if it meant moving into the Bekaa Valley and turning the operation into a sprawling occupation.

“Israel’s leaders know that would involve huge risks, for Israel itself, and the last time Israel had a sprawling ground occupation of Lebanon, it turned into a disastrous situation for it.”

He also pointed to rhetoric inside Israel suggesting even broader ambitions.

“A far-right minister (Bezalel) Smotrich said the other day that, in his view, Israel’s northern boundary should be the Litani River. What we’re talking about here is 10% of Lebanese territory ... (and) a minister talking openly about annexing it.”

Pinfold said Israel appears to be revisiting the idea of a security zone similar to the one it maintained in southern Lebanon from 1985 to 2000. But he said that policy failed before and is unlikely to succeed now.

“Israel had occupied that territory, and the goal was to have a very short-term stabilization occupation and then leave ... Israel stayed behind for another 15 years, and it was actually that occupation which created Hezbollah because of the friction between the Shia population and the Israeli occupiers.”

Humanitarian toll rising

Lebanese authorities say at least 1,029 people have been killed and 2,786 injured in Israeli attacks since March 2. More than 1 million people have been displaced from southern Lebanon, Beirut’s southern suburbs and parts of the Bekaa Valley.

Analysts say a deeper invasion would sharply worsen an already severe humanitarian crisis.

“If Israel occupies territory up to the Litani River … (there will be) thousands and thousands of Lebanese who have no reasonable prospect of going back to their homes,” Wood said.

He said many displaced civilians, most of them from Lebanon’s Shia community, are already struggling to find shelter as facilities become overcrowded and tensions rise in host areas.

“This is not just a war on Hezbollah,” Wood said. “The tactics … are collectively punishing the Lebanese population.”

Imad Salamey, a professor of political and international studies at Lebanese American University, also warned that an Israeli invasion could trigger major humanitarian collapse, mass displacement, infrastructure destruction and rising internal tensions in Lebanon.

He added that it would also risk dragging Israel into a prolonged and costly occupation that would be difficult to sustain.

Can Hezbollah actually be defeated?

Israeli military officials say Hezbollah is still firing around 150 rockets a day and retains thousands of short-range rockets, as well as hundreds of longer-range projectiles.

Analysts say Israel will likely maintain military superiority because of its intelligence capabilities, advanced technology and dominance of Lebanese airspace. But they also say that is very different from eliminating Hezbollah.

“Israel’s goal of eliminating Hezbollah as a threat to its national security is a very ambitious one and a difficult one to achieve,” Wood said.

He noted that Hezbollah’s apparent objective is survival in what it sees as an existential fight.

“It is very difficult to envisage how Israel could actually eliminate Hezbollah completely, given that the organization has fighters and military assets in different parts of Lebanon … It is part of Lebanese society, so it’s very difficult to go and systematically destroy every last military asset of Hezbollah.”

Wood said Israel’s failure to fully dismantle Hamas in Gaza after more than two years of war shows how difficult that objective would be in Lebanon, which is larger and more open.

“Gaza is a much smaller area than Lebanon, and it’s much more difficult to move in and out and around Gaza than it is in Lebanon. So, if Israel couldn’t achieve it against Hamas, how do they plan to achieve that sort of defeat against Hezbollah?”

Salamey also said Israeli ground operations could weaken Hezbollah militarily, but not easily destroy it.

“A full defeat would require sustained occupation and pressure on the Lebanese state – an option Israel seems to reserve only if the Iran track fails.”

International pressure and legal questions

Countries including France, Germany and Canada have urged Israel not to occupy southern Lebanon and have stressed the need to respect Lebanese sovereignty.

Human Rights Watch also warned in a recent statement that forcible displacement, wanton destruction, and attacks deliberately targeting civilians constitute war crimes. Countries that continue to provide Tel Aviv with arms and military aid risk complicity in the Israeli government’s serious violations in Lebanon, it added.

Analysts also say any long-term occupation would likely clash with international frameworks, including UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Still, Wood said Israel is likely to press on, justifying its actions as self-defense as Hezbollah continues firing.

“As matters stand, Israel is very likely to continue attacking Lebanon, using the justification that it has tried reaching a negotiated settlement with Lebanon.”

The duration of any occupation, analysts say, may ultimately be decided not by diplomacy but by fighting on the ground.

“I think we can take Israel’s leaders at their word on this one, which is that … at least for as long as Hezbollah continues to fire missiles and fight Israeli troops on the ground, Israel’s likely to maintain its troop presence in southern Lebanon,” Wood said.

He warned that even if Hezbollah stops fighting, Israel’s leaders may still decide to keep the territory as a buffer zone for the indefinite future.

For now, analysts say the longer the war continues, the greater the risk that Lebanon is pulled into a conflict with no clear endpoint.

“It won’t be Hezbollah ... it will be the Lebanese people who will pay the highest price,” warned Wood.