The decision by the Hezbollah bloc in the Lebanese parliament to depart the coalition could spell either disaster or serendipity for Israel, as fears of a 2011 war that could devastate Tel Aviv are at the forefront of security fears.
An upcoming Hariri government-backed tribunal is expected to indict top Hezbollah members in the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. That departure could result in several different circumstances, the outcomes of which could have diametrically opposed impacts on Israel.
In one scenario, Lebanon could erupt into civil war, pitting Hezbollah against Hariri-backed Christian groups. That conflict could mirror the previous Lebanese civil war, where the Phalangists battled the PLO. A Hezbollah-Hariri civil war could result in Hezbollah militants preoccupying themselves with that conflict instead of using their stockpiled weapons against Israel. Many analysts fear that Iran-supplied Hezbollah rockets will target Israel this year and even drop on Tel Aviv, with the preoccupation of internal strife diverting resources and attention to the domestic Lebanese dispute. As Hezbollah has not attacked Israel in years and the group’s chief Hassan Nasr’allah likely fears an Israeli strike akin to the 2006 Lebanon War that demolished the terrorist organization’s armory, attacks on Israel during a civil war by Hezbollah could be unlikely. A civil war could give the Lebanese an opportunity to undermine Hezbollah, or, at the very least, preoccupy the group and remove a threat that Israel faces an imminent attack.
On the other hand, during the last civil war, the PLO continued its strikes on Israel while continuing its onslaught of the Phalangists. In the previous civil war, attacks on Israel led the IDF to invade Lebanon and occupy southern Beirut, with the eventual expulsion of the PLO from Lebanon. The removal of definitive rule in Lebanon could reduce any reluctance to attack Israel and begin rocket bombardments that have been quiet since 2006. Israel could get sucked into the conflict, as had occurred in the previous civil war, and lead to international condemnation that Israel occupies another country and (as is likely) kills civilians as part of the campaign. In that situation, Iran could funnel more weapons to Hezbollah to use during the civil war, some of which could also be used against Israel during or after the end of the conflict, with Tel Aviv possibly in Hezbollahs crosshairs.
In another scenario, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt could back Hezbollah, which would mandate the formation of a new government and could cost Hariri the coalition. That scenario could provide Hezbollah with more governing clout and the ability to leverage Lebanese resources. Hezbollah could attempt to govern instead of devoting resources to attacking Israel, but outside influences could complicate that approach as well. Syria has perpetually mingled in internal Lebanese affairs, often backing competing groups to ensure that no one organization gains power. Therefore, an effective Hezbollah coup could result in further involvement by Syria and continued instability in Lebanon.
Or, Hariri could resolve the conflict by agreeing to Hezbollah demands. In exchange, Hezbollah would help suppress armed Palestinian gangs, which would bolster stability in the country.Hariri somehow staying in power is regarded by some as the most likely, which would continue the status quo situation of quiet on Israel’s northern border but potential for war.
Either way, Israeli military and intelligence agencies are likely keeping a keen eye on Lebanese developments, which could ignite into conflict with Israel or make possible war in 2011 less likely.
