Lebanon may fight a “smart war of attrition” against the Israeli occupation

Steven Sahiounie, journalist and political commentator

Israel has announced an occupation zone in Lebanon, including some Syrian territory. Israel is calling the new boundaries the “Yellow Line”. This is similar to the lines Israel has drawn within the Gaza Strip, where a US-sponsored ceasefire was in effect, yet has never been respected by the Israeli Army.

Lebanese officials, and citizens are worried this is the beginning of a forever-war, and permanent occupation of Lebanon. The memories of a past 18-year brutal military occupation pf South Lebanon conjure up painful recollections of torture, death and imprisonment in Khiam of men, women and children.

The international community is impotent in the face of Israel, who is seen as dictating American foreign policy in the Trump administration. France had been seen as a defender of Lebanon, but President Emmanuel Macron cannot stand up to President Benjamin Netanyahu while President Donald Trump props green-lights him.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Egyptian Army Brigadier General Hatem Atef, a political and military analyst. His insight gives a rare glance into the military aspect of Lebanon’s current dilemma.

1. Steven Sahiounie (SS): Israel has announced the “Yellow Line,” which includes large areas of southern Lebanon and southern Syria. In your view, how will this issue be resolved, especially given that both the Lebanese government and the resistance completely reject it?

Brigadier General Hatem Atef (HA): As a researcher in strategic affairs and national security, I am pleased to offer an in-depth military and intelligence reading of these rapidly evolving developments that are reshaping spheres of influence in our volatile region.

The “Yellow Line” is an Israeli attempt to impose a geographical fait accompli under the pretext of national security. In essence, it is a replication of the old “security belt” scenario, but with greater strategic depth, extending into the Golan and southern Lebanon. Resolving this issue will not come through diplomatic tables alone, but through a “balance of deterrence on the ground.” Lebanon — both its army and its resistance — views this line as an existential threat and a disguised occupation. Therefore, a field-based solution will likely impose itself through a “smart war of attrition” that will make the cost of Israel’s presence behind this line extremely high in both human and economic terms. Ultimately, this may compel the international community to return to arrangements that guarantee full sovereignty, as history has shown that maps drawn by tanks are erased by popular will.

2. SS: Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have returned to their highest levels, with threats of negotiations collapsing and a third round of war. Are we on the brink of such a round, and who would be the victor?

HA: The Strait of Hormuz is the “artery of global energy,” and tensions there are not merely a show of force but a strategic “arm-wrestling” contest. We are already living in the atmosphere of a “third round,” but it is a different kind of war — one of “hybrid corridor warfare.” A complete collapse of negotiations would push the region into a “controlled explosion.” The victor will not be the side with more weapons, but the one with greater endurance and the ability to withstand disruptions in supply chains. Militarily, Iran holds the advantage of “geographical leverage” in the strait, while Washington maintains technological superiority. However, the real winner will be the party that succeeds in securing alternative energy routes away from the strait — something neither side has fully achieved yet.

3. SS: In classical military logic, every war has a winner and a loser, yet in the conflict between Washington and Tehran, both claim victory. From your military perspective, who is truly winning?

HA: In classical military doctrine, the winner is the one who controls territory. However, in the “shadow wars” between Washington and Tehran, the criteria differ. Washington claims victory through its ability to economically constrain Iran and limit its regional proxies, while Tehran claims victory through its resilience and continued expansion of influence despite sanctions. In reality, the “winner” is the one who imposes their political agenda without sliding into a full-scale war that would harm their own interests. From a sustainability perspective, Iran has achieved a strategic victory by remaining an unavoidable regional player, while Washington has secured a tactical victory by preventing Iran from reaching the nuclear threshold — at least for now. This is a war of points, not a knockout blow.

4. SS: Netanyahu announced in 2024 that he had eliminated Hezbollah and destroyed its military arsenal, yet within 40 days we saw the opposite. How do you explain this?

HA: Netanyahu’s statements in 2024 were based on what could be described as “intelligence euphoria” and the impact of devastating airstrikes. However, he fell into a common trap among political leaders: confusing the destruction of infrastructure with the destruction of combat doctrine. Hezbollah relies on a “clustered decentralization” model, meaning that destroying leadership or main depots does not paralyze field cells. What we witnessed during those 40 days was a “reserve of surprises” prepared over years underground, beyond the reach of satellite surveillance. Militarily, Hezbollah succeeded in “absorbing the initial shock” and repositioning itself, proving that even advanced Israeli military technology cannot decisively defeat an “invisible enemy” operating within a complex geographical environment.

5. SS: The U.S. president repeatedly declared during the war that Iran’s naval forces, air defenses, and ballistic missiles had been neutralized, yet events on the ground showed otherwise until the very last moment. Were these statements an intelligence failure or media posturing?

HA: U.S. statements about neutralizing Iran’s naval and ballistic capabilities were a mix of “information warfare” and “political posturing.” American intelligence is well aware that Tehran follows a strategy of “manufacturing under siege” and “strategic concealment.” What appeared on the battlefield until the final moments indicates the existence of a “reserve arsenal” and missile silos hidden deep within mountainous terrain that were not reached by strikes. This is less an intelligence failure and more a “miscalculation of recovery capability.” Washington had bet that the intensity of strikes would lead to systemic collapse, but instead, Iran’s military system proved to be designed to operate under conditions of “radar blindness” and decentralized command. This is why U.S. media rhetoric ultimately collided with battlefield realities.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist.