Middle East Archives - CrossFireArarbia

Analysis: Why Did Hezbollah Enter This War?

CrossFireArabia
March 5, 2026

Hezbollah’s entry into the war reflects strategic calculations shaped by Israeli escalation, regional alliances, and Lebanon’s fractured politics.

Key Takeaways

Israel has repeatedly violated the ceasefire in Lebanon through airstrikes, raids, and surveillance operations.
Hezbollah’s response has so far remained limited compared to Israel’s sustained military actions.
Lebanon’s political leadership has failed to present a unified response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah’s intervention reflects strategic concerns about Israel’s long-term plans in Lebanon and the broader war against Iran.
The coordination between Iran, Hezbollah, Ansarallah, and Iraqi factions suggests the Axis of Resistance continues to operate collectively.

A Regional War Expands

Hezbollah’s decision to enter the ongoing regional confrontation did not occur in isolation. The latest escalation began when the United States and Israel launched major strikes against Iran, triggering waves of Iranian retaliation across the region.

The conflict quickly expanded beyond Iran itself. Iranian retaliatory strikes targeted US military assets and positions across the Gulf. The war rapidly assumed the character of a wider regional confrontation involving multiple actors aligned along competing geopolitical blocs.

Within this context, attention turned to Lebanon, where Hezbollah—one of the most powerful non-state actors in the Middle East—began limited military operations against Israeli positions along the border.

The central question quickly emerged: Why did Hezbollah enter the war?

The answer lies in a combination of military, political, and strategic considerations that go far beyond the immediate battlefield.

Did Hezbollah Violate the Ceasefire?

A central claim advanced by Israel and some Western governments – and even anti-Hezbollah factions in Lebanon itself – is that Hezbollah’s actions represent a violation of the ceasefire arrangements that followed previous rounds of conflict along the Lebanese border.

However, the reality on the ground presents a far more complex picture.

For months, Israel has carried out continuous violations of Lebanese sovereignty through airstrikes, drone surveillance, artillery fire, and cross-border incursions.

According to Lebanese government figures and reports by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Israel has committed thousands of violations of Lebanese airspace and territory since the ceasefire arrangements took effect.

Lebanese officials have repeatedly documented Israeli overflights, drone operations, and missile strikes inside the country. UNIFIL has also confirmed frequent violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli aircraft.

These actions have not been merely symbolic. Israeli strikes have caused civilian casualties and extensive destruction of homes and infrastructure in southern Lebanon.

Villages near the border have experienced repeated bombardments, forcing families to flee and damaging agricultural land and civilian property.

At the same time, Israeli officials have openly signaled that they have no intention of withdrawing fully from Lebanese territory or halting military operations.

Several Israeli leaders have stated publicly that Israel intends to maintain military pressure on Hezbollah and potentially establish a longer-term security presence along the border.

In this context, Hezbollah’s response—limited strikes against Israeli military positions—cannot easily be framed as the violation of a functioning ceasefire.

Rather, Hezbollah and its allies argue that no real ceasefire existed, given the scale and persistence of Israeli violations.

Did Hezbollah Violate Lebanese Consensus?

Another argument advanced by critics inside Lebanon is that Hezbollah’s intervention undermines national consensus and drags the country into a war it cannot afford.

Lebanon’s government, which maintains close ties with Western governments and the United States, has repeatedly blamed Hezbollah for escalating tensions.

However, the government has struggled to provide a convincing explanation of how it interprets Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanese territory.

While condemning Hezbollah’s actions, Lebanese authorities have largely failed to respond militarily—or even diplomatically in an effective way—to Israeli strikes.

The Lebanese state has not fired a single bullet at Israeli forces despite repeated attacks inside its territory. This has deepened the political divide within Lebanese society.

Lebanon has long been fractured along sectarian, ideological, and geopolitical lines. Some factions align closely with Western and Gulf states, while others view themselves as part of the Axis of Resistance, which includes Iran, Hezbollah, Ansarallah in Yemen, Palestinian resistance factons and several Iraqi factions.

Within this divided political landscape, there has never been a unified national consensus regarding confrontation with Israel.

For many Lebanese—particularly in communities that have historically borne the brunt of Israeli attacks—Hezbollah’s military posture is viewed as a form of deterrence rather than escalation.

So Why Did Hezbollah Enter the War?

Hezbollah’s decision to join the conflict appears to reflect a broader strategic calculation.

From Hezbollah’s perspective, the Israeli war was likely to expand regardless of its immediate actions.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly declared their intention to reshape the regional balance of power and weaken Iran and its allies.

For Hezbollah, the prospect of Iran being significantly weakened carries profound implications.

If Iran’s position in the region were severely damaged, Hezbollah could find itself facing Israel largely alone—while simultaneously confronting pressure from the United States, Western governments, and regional Arab powers aligned with Washington.

In such a scenario, Hezbollah could be isolated militarily and politically.

Entering the war now, while Iran remains actively engaged and regional allies are mobilized, allows Hezbollah to operate within a broader coalition rather than as an isolated actor.

It also ensures that Hezbollah retains influence over the eventual diplomatic outcome of the conflict.

Wars in the Middle East often conclude not with decisive military victories but through negotiated exits once the architects of war decide to pursue a political strategy.

By participating in the conflict, Hezbollah guarantees that it will have a seat at the negotiating table when such an exit strategy eventually emerges.

Does This Mean the Axis of Resistance Has Been Reborn?

Some analysts have framed the current coordination between Iran, Hezbollah, Ansarallah, and Iraqi factions as the “rebirth” of the Axis of Resistance.

But the reality may be more nuanced.

The Axis of Resistance was never destroyed. Instead, each actor within it has often had to adapt to its own domestic political realities.

Hezbollah operates within Lebanon’s complex sectarian political system. Iraqi factions must navigate Baghdad’s fragile state institutions. Ansarallah governs large parts of Yemen under conditions of war and blockade. Hamas remains focused on defeating the Israeli-US scheme aimed at disarming resistance and ethnically cleansing Palestinians from Gaza,

These differing political contexts often limit how openly each actor can coordinate with the others. Yet recent developments suggest that the axis is functioning in a coordinated manner.

Iranian strikes across the region, Ansarallah’s operations in the Red Sea, and Hezbollah’s engagement along the Lebanese border indicate a level of strategic alignment.

The current conflict has therefore revealed not the rebirth of the axis but its continued operational existence.

Our Strategic Analysis

Hezbollah’s intervention reflects a calculated strategic move rather than an impulsive escalation.

Israel’s continued military pressure on Lebanon, combined with the wider war against Iran, created conditions in which Hezbollah perceived long-term risks in remaining passive.

By entering the conflict in a limited but coordinated manner, Hezbollah seeks to shape the strategic environment before the war reaches a stage where diplomatic negotiations become inevitable.

In doing so, Hezbollah is signaling that the future of Lebanon—and the broader regional balance of power—cannot be determined without its participation.

Palestine Chronicle

Analyses

Gulf Escalation: A Blaze Awaits The Region

CrossFireArabia
January 29, 2026

By Dr Marwan Asmar

With the Abraham Lincoln destroyer entering Middle East waters, everyone is gearing up for another US–Israeli war on Iran—the second in less than eight months.

Anxiety is gripping the region from the Gulf to Iran and all the way to Israel. Foreign states are warning their citizens in these countries to leave, while some airlines have suspended flights to the region. Once again, the Middle East is on a war footing, with fears that a wide conflict could erupt at any moment.

With an additional 7,000 US troops moving to the region, along with jets and fighter planes, the buildup is being described as the biggest “get-ready” military move since 2003, when the US launched its major war on Iraq and reshaped the region. Today, Middle Eastern countries are jittery about the current situation and the possibility of looming instability.

US President Donald Trump is not helping matters. He says he is weighing all options but keeps everyone guessing about his next move. He has warned that if the Iranian government continues its iron-fisted crackdown on protesters, the US could intervene militarily and wage another war on Tehran—much to the delight of the Israeli government, which is reportedly playing a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging unrest in Iran.

Although Trump is raising the war tempo and increasingly saber-rattling through military entrenchment, he is also sending mixed signals. He is not as boisterous as he was when he launched US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025. What he really wants is to push Iran back to the negotiating table and secure a lasting deal on its nuclear programme. He claims Iran’s facilities have been dealt a significant blow and may never recover, but this seems unrealistic, given how far Iran has advanced in nuclear enrichment.

While Trump describes Israel as a “role model” ally and urges Arab countries to follow suit—a claim many find laughable—Washington appears to be diverging from Tel Aviv over objectives on Iran and may even be at odds with it. Analysts say Israel wants strikes, even multiple ones, to change Iran’s regime and is less concerned about the chaos that could follow.

The United States, by contrast, appears more cautious. US officials do not necessarily want a new regime in Iran, uncertain of what might replace it. They prefer the logic of “the devil you know rather than the devil you don’t.” Washington wants a regime it can work with, despite ideological differences, notwithstanding Trump’s bombastic rhetoric, which Tehran may exploit if it chooses to play the “Mr Nice Guy.”

One analyst suggests Trump wants tangible gains from Iran, preferably access to its oil resources through US petroleum companies, but this may be a pipe dream.

If that fails, Trump is likely to push for a revamped nuclear deal to replace the 2015 agreement, which reached its term in September 2025 and is up for renewal. He wants a deal stamped with a distinctly “Trumpian” identity, even though many issues are already settled. Needless to say, Trump wants to claim credit for clinching the deal.

Today, the region stands on the edge of a precipice. It is touch-and-go. Many experts argue that a Middle East war is not imminent because it is neither politically nor economically feasible. Yet logic often takes a back seat in Trump’s world, especially with Israel pushing for a new wave of attacks on Iran, this time targeting its ballistic missile programme.

Iran, however, says it is ready. It has warned it will strike US bases in the region and beyond if it detects even a hint of an imminent attack. Iranian political and military leaders insist they will not remain sitting ducks for Washington or Tel Aviv. As a result, the region is caught in an escalating poker game.

While many believe Iran and its regional allies, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, have been significantly weakened over the past two years, neither the US nor Israel can be certain of Iran’s real capabilities. This uncertainty leaves them unsure about their next move—or Iran’s.

All this makes both Israel and the United States nervous about unpredictable scenarios across the region. Everyone is waiting, tapping their fingers, bracing for what may come next.

This article was originally published in Countercurrents.org

Opinion

Netanyahu’s Middle East Vision

CrossFireArabia
December 15, 2025

By the end of December, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to visit Washington to meet US President Donald Trump, marking his fourth visit in less than a year since Trump assumed office. Unlike previous visits, this one comes after President Trump imposed his vision for ending the war in Gaza and outlined his broader concept of regional peace—giving the visit a distinctly political dimension.

At the core of the discussions will be the transition to the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement, the appointment of an American general and a monitoring center, and the mechanism for administering Gaza ahead of the arrival of an international peace force. The visit is also expected to address Israel’s relations with its regional surroundings, particularly Egypt. Reports suggest the possibility of a simultaneous visit by the Egyptian president to Washington, reflecting a clear American desire to initiate direct engagement and promote the concept of “economic peace,” along with major regional projects that Trump views as the backbone of future relations, especially in the energy and gas sectors.

Yet even as President Trump speaks of a regional peace vision, the days preceding the visit remain open to further escalation. Indicators point toward a qualitative Israeli escalation across four fronts: Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria. These fronts have been deliberately kept open, transformed into continuous theaters of operation where Israel calibrates the level of military activity according to its security assessments.

Lebanon remains the most prominent arena of this escalation. Ongoing discussions about Hezbollah’s efforts to rebuild its capabilities coincide with Israel’s continued direct targeting of the group’s positions and operatives. This comes amid growing American pressure on the Lebanese government and army to take concrete steps toward disarming Hezbollah.

While the group is fully aware of its inability to engage in a comprehensive regional war, and the need to avoid providing direct justifications for escalation, it nevertheless finds itself compelled to use the weapons issue domestically to reshape internal power balances. At the same time, Hezbollah seeks to secure the future framework of its relationship with Syria, particularly if the Syrian-Lebanese border shifts from being merely a site of interdiction to a direct target zone.

This reality severely constrains Hizbollah’s response options while granting Israel continued latitude to strike the group’s infrastructure, capitalising on the absence of a decisive resolution to the weapons issue and on Lebanon’s institutional confusion over how to address it, whether through phased timelines or alternative formulas such as placing weapons under army control. From Israel’s perspective, this ambiguity justifies continued targeting until a decisive moment is reached.

Within this context, Israel’s strategy of imposing a new reality across its border fronts aligns closely with the transition to the second phase of President Trump’s plan. This approach corresponds with Israel’s efforts over the past two years to redraw geographical and security realities in Syria, Gaza, Lebanon, and even the West Bank. While the Trump administration opposed a formal declaration of annexation in the West Bank, it did not object in practice to Israel’s on-the-ground measures, allowing these changes to solidify as irreversible facts.

Security measures taken today may therefore establish realities that will be difficult to reverse in the future. From Washington’s perspective, redrawing borders may be seen as laying the groundwork for what it terms “regional peace,” treating the new border realities as spaces for potential economic or developmental investment.

Netanyahu’s visit to the White House thus represents a pivotal moment. He will seek to position himself as a central actor in the next phase, consolidate new realities along Israel’s immediate borders, and secure U.S. backing in addressing non-adjacent fronts, most notably Iraq, and above all Iran.

Iran is left to grapple with an increasingly severe internal reality marked by mounting economic, social, service-related, and security challenges, and is simultaneously categorized as part of the camp of “obstructors of regional peace” in Trump’s framework, opening the door to intensified pressure and varied forms of targeting in the period ahead.

Dr Amer Al Sabaileh, a professor in the University of Jordan contributed this analysis to the Jordan Times.

Opinion

How Should Arabs Influence The US?

CrossFireArabia
September 15, 2025

By Hamed Kasasbeh

The United States faces a sensitive equation in the Middle East. On one side, a strong strategic alliance with Israel, built on military and intelligence superiority. On the other, a deep economic and security partnership with Arab states, which control oil, gas, key waterways, and sovereign wealth funds. Yet Washington still treats Arabs as financial and energy suppliers, while granting Israel unconditional superiority. The question is: How long can this continue before America pays a strategic price?

Since the 1970s, oil has been tied to the U.S. dollar through the petrodollar system. This made the dollar the backbone of the global financial order and allowed Washington to finance deficits while keeping global dominance. But the landscape is shifting. BRICS seeks to reduce reliance on the dollar. With Saudi Arabia and the UAE joining, Arabs now have direct influence on the future of global finance. Any move to price oil in other currencies could shake the foundations of U.S. power.

Meanwhile, Israel—backed by open U.S. support—pushes Netanyahu’s vision of a “New Middle East.” The plan is clear: destroy Gaza, swallow the West Bank, fund the displacement of Palestinians, and strike Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, and Yemen. Even Gulf states are no longer outside the danger zone, as Israeli threats expand across the region.

Israel has little economic weight compared to the Arabs, but it enjoys political and military privileges that make it a forward base for Washington. Arabs, by contrast, hold powerful cards: oil and gas, the Suez Canal, Bab al-Mandab, the Strait of Hormuz, and sovereign funds with hundreds of billions in U.S. markets. Used together within a united stance, these cards can rebalance U.S. policy toward Israel.

The pressure is not only economic. The U.S. operates dozens of military bases in the Gulf, Jordan, and Turkey. If Arabs link these facilities to Washington’s position on the conflict, the cost of bias will rise. At the same time, Arabs are no longer just oil producers. They are key players in renewable energy and green hydrogen, shaping the future of global energy markets.

Inside the U.S., the Israeli narrative no longer dominates unchallenged. A growing movement among youth, universities, and independent media rejects blind support for Israel, especially after the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. This has fueled mass protests, political pressure, and divisions inside the Democratic Party between the old guard and a younger generation more critical of Israel. Arabs can build on this by engaging think tanks, universities, and Arab-American communities.

In Europe, the EU cannot ignore its vital interests with the Arab world in energy, trade, and investment. Public anger over Gaza is rising. Arabs have an opportunity to unify their message and push Europe toward greater independence from Washington. Linking access to Arab markets with balanced political positions could turn sympathy into official pressure on Israel from within its Western allies.

At the international level, Israeli actions no longer pass without scrutiny. The UN Security Council has issued repeated condemnations, despite Washington’s vetoes. The latest vote reaffirmed the two-state solution as the only path to peace, highlighting Israel’s growing isolation. A united Arab stance could transform this consensus into real leverage, combining international legitimacy with Arab economic power.

In the end, the ball is in the Arabs’ court. They hold the tools to impose a new balance and secure a fair solution for Palestine. If they act with unity and resolve, they can curb Israeli arrogance and reshape the region. If not, the cost will fall on Arab citizens—through weaker economies, shrinking wages, and eroded sovereignty—while the future of the Middle East is written without them.

The writer is a columnist in the Jordan Times

Analyses

Israel’s Mideast Message

CrossFireArabia
September 11, 2025

By Dr Maisa Al Masri

“This is a message to the entire Middle East,” Israeli Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana said in response to the Israeli airstrike that targeted Hamas leaders in the heart of the Qatari capital, Doha.

However, this statement is not merely a comment on the military operation strike into a declared strategic message, telling the entire region, and primarily the Gulf, that Israel, in partnership with Washington, has become the master of the decision-making process in the region.

Ohana’s statement is an explicit and direct threat that leaves no room for interpretation, reflecting the new deterrence doctrine adopted by Tel Aviv: No red lines, no geographical immunities, and no Western allies outside the confines of Israeli dictates. Simply put, anyone who disagrees with us becomes a legitimate target, even if they are in the heart of a friendly capital that hosts the largest American military base.

This makes for a dangerous conclusion: Israel no longer views the Gulf states as partners in stability, but rather as “open arenas for fiery messages.” Washington is blessing the silence, participating in complicity, and mocking the Arabs.

Naked dominance

And don’t forget the Israeli crime in the heart of the Gulf marks the beginning of a new era of naked dominance. It’s not a traditional security operation, but a pivotal turning point in the rules of regional engagement, in which Qatar has been embarrassed both on the Arab level and internationally.

Israel has now publicly placed itself in a circle (no longer concealing its intentions) – through bombing and military strikes – that it no longer sees a distinction between political geography and the theater of operations. More dangerously, the heart of the Gulf today has become openly subject to Tel Aviv’s fire. And who can challenge it?

The strike wasn’t an intelligence leak or a silent targeting, but a direct airstrike in an area teeming with embassies, schools, and residential buildings, in a country that is a major ally of Washington and a pillar of American security in the Middle East.

Thus the message has become clear to everyone: No one is above attack… no state, no sovereignty, no partnership.

The US administration, led by Donald Trump, evaded with a series of conflicting statements about its prior knowledge of the operation. But whether it knew and blessed it, knew and remained silent, knew too late, or did not know at all, the outcome is the same: The American cover was removed, Gulf confidence eroded, and billions perished. The statements of the US embassy in Doha did not go beyond expressions of caution to American citizens, while White House statements swayed between “regret over the location” to “understanding the goal of eliminating terrorism.”

I believe the opposite message was conveyed to the Gulf capitals: Your security is not a priority, and your sovereignty does not equate to a clear position from Washington. The question that now arises however is: Why Qatar? Why now? Why was the strike carried out in Qatar and not in Turkey, or Iran for example? This is despite the fact that the Hamas leaders that were targeted had just returned from Istanbul, suggesting Tel Aviv chose the location not arbitrarily but with deep political awareness. Tel Aviv did not pull the trigger in Istanbul, even though the targeted leaders passed through it only hours earlier.

Turkey, with all its military, political, and international complexity, is not a testing ground for Israeli madness. There are red lines that even Tel Aviv dares not cross… and Turkey is one of them. The potential Turkish military response, the internal Turkish explosion during a highly sensitive election season, and the delicate balance of power within NATO rendered Turkish territory “operationally closed” even to the most violent wings of Israeli decision-making. But when the targeted figures left Istanbul for Doha, everything changed.

Qatar, like other threatened Arab states, in the Israeli security and intelligence mindset, is merely an intermediate gray area, neither neutral nor classified as an “enemy,” potentially a shocking target at a low cost. This is something all Arab decision-makers should be aware of.

From Tel Aviv’s perspective, Qatar is balancing contradictory roles, managing mediation, funding aid, and hosting parties that anger Israel without possessing a genuine deterrent umbrella. There are no international calculations that could prevent a surgical strike carried out within hours. Merely hosting an American base does not make Doha “immune,” but may even further tempt Tel Aviv, proving that decision-making in the region is no longer solely in Washington’s hands but in Tel Aviv as well.

In short, Israel needed a platform to send the biggest message since the Gaza war… so it chose the weakest link, amid the silence of its strongest ally.

Here, we can pause a moment at the Knesset member’s statement that the operation was “a message to the Middle East.” This is not a slip of the tongue, but a strategic doctrine upon which future decisions are based. Israel is telling all countries in the region that whoever harbors Hamas, or even engages in dialogue with it, will be next.

If the Arab states fail to take a firm political stand, the Doha precedent will be repeated elsewhere. It may not be Hamas’s mediation that stands accuse but rather the concepts of neutrality, balance, and even dialogue with parties Tel Aviv disapproves of and which then could become sufficient justification for a strike. It’s a policy of punishment.

This scene is posing existential questions for Arab capitals. If Qatar, Washington’s most important ally, is being bombed over the heads of its own people, after Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza… should we wait for Iraq’s turn? Riyadh? Abu Dhabi? Kuwait? And others? Does the American umbrella truly protect us, or is it used only when our interests intersect with Israel’s?

And what is the point of hosting American bases if they do not prevent airspace violations? Or provide protection?

What happened in Doha is pushing the region to crossroads: Either continuing its position of dependency and timid mediation, or repositioning strategically and developing independent air defenses, which is logistically difficult, or seeking alternative alliances (Ankara, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran?), and establishing red lines that Tel Aviv will not cross.

Qatar now faces difficult choices: Will it withdraw from the Hamas mediation? Will it demand real security guarantees? Will it go further, toward symbolic deterrence or unconventional partnerships? Or will it pay the price of protection once again?

Beware: A war of wills is beginning now. The Israeli airstrike in Doha was not just a blow to Hamas, but also a slap in the face to the sovereignty of the Gulf and the region, an undermining of the prestige of international law and its signed, ratified, and binding agreements, and an insult to the concept of the alleged strategic partnership with America.

This is the beginning of a new era, one in which Israel and Washington declare that the security of the region is no longer an Arab decision. The question now is: Will the Arabs as a whole wake up before “Ohana’s message” reaches other capitals? Perhaps.

The author is a political writer based in Amman Jordan and contributed this article to the Al Rai Alyoum Arabic website