Bambang Pamungkas
Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia – Israel has declared its intent to seize parts of southern Lebanon to establish a "defensive buffer zone," a move signaling a significant escalation in the protracted regional conflict. This declaration comes as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed Israel’s commitment to continuing its offensive against Iran, effectively dampening earlier hopes for de-escalation expressed by figures such as former US President Donald Trump, who had alluded to prospects for a resolution. The multifaceted crisis, unfolding across multiple fronts, now encompasses direct military posturing, internal Lebanese political upheaval, and a deepening shadow war between Israel and Iran.
Escalation in Southern Lebanon: A New ‘Defensive Buffer’
The gravity of Israel’s latest territorial claim was articulated by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz during a meeting with military chiefs. As reported by The Guardian on Thursday, March 26, 2026, Katz stated that Israeli forces would "control the remaining bridges and the security zone up to the Litani," referring to the Litani River. This strategically vital waterway empties into the Mediterranean Sea approximately 30 kilometers north of the current Israeli-Lebanese border. Katz’s comments underscore an intention for a potentially prolonged military presence, reminiscent of Israel’s historical "security zone" in southern Lebanon, which lasted from 1985 until 2000. That previous occupation was ostensibly aimed at preventing cross-border attacks by Palestinian militants and later Hezbollah.
The implications of such a move are profound. The Iranian-backed armed group Hezbollah, a dominant political and military force in Lebanon, swiftly condemned the proposed Israeli expansion as an "existential threat" to the Lebanese state. Hezbollah’s strong reaction is understandable given that southern Lebanon is its primary stronghold and operational base. The group views any Israeli encroachment beyond the internationally recognized border as a direct challenge to Lebanese sovereignty and a precursor to broader military confrontations.
Adding a layer of tactical detail, Katz further elaborated that all bridges over the Litani River, which he claimed Hezbollah utilizes for transporting personnel and weaponry into southern Lebanon, "have been blown up and the IDF will control the remaining bridges." This statement suggests a systematic campaign to disrupt Hezbollah’s logistical capabilities and establish firm control over key crossing points, effectively creating a physical barrier to its southward movements. The strategic significance of the Litani River cannot be overstated; controlling it would grant Israel a considerable tactical advantage, impeding Hezbollah’s ability to operate freely in the region and push its forces closer to the Israeli border.
Preceding Katz’s announcement, hardline Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich had already stirred controversy by stating that Israel should "apply sovereignty" in southern Lebanon. Smotrich, a prominent figure in Israel’s right-wing political spectrum, has a history of advocating for policies that are widely seen as expansionist. His remarks were met with alarm both domestically and internationally, fueling fears that Israel’s actions might extend beyond defensive measures to encompass territorial annexation, further complicating any future peace prospects and potentially violating international law, which prohibits the acquisition of territory by force.
Internal Lebanese Turmoil and Diplomatic Earthquake
The escalating external pressures have triggered an unprecedented internal crisis within Lebanon, a nation already reeling from economic collapse, political paralysis, and social unrest. In a dramatic and highly unusual diplomatic move, the Lebanese government declared Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Reza Shibani persona non grata and ordered him to leave the country before Sunday. This expulsion marks a seismic shift, indicating a significant and public rupture in relations with Tehran and potentially signaling a weakening of Iran’s decades-long influence over Lebanese affairs. Iran has historically exerted considerable sway through its deep ties with Hezbollah, providing financial, military, and political support. The expulsion could be interpreted as a desperate attempt by the Lebanese government, under immense international and domestic pressure, to assert its sovereignty and distance itself from the regional conflict engulfing its territory.
Further highlighting the profound internal divisions, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam issued a rare and direct plea to Hezbollah, urging the group to cease its attacks against Israel. Salam unequivocally stated that retaliating on behalf of the Iranian leadership "has nothing to do with us." This statement is a stark reflection of the deep chasm between Lebanon’s official government and Hezbollah, which often operates as a state within a state, pursuing its own foreign policy agenda aligned with Iran’s "Axis of Resistance." Hezbollah, in turn, vehemently denounced the government’s decision to expel the Iranian ambassador and Salam’s appeal, labeling them as actions that serve Israeli interests and threaten to deepen internal divisions. This public spat raises serious concerns about the potential for renewed internal conflict within Lebanon, a country still scarred by its devastating civil war (1975-1990) and vulnerable to sectarian tensions. The government’s actions suggest a struggle to regain control over national decision-making, particularly concerning matters of war and peace, from a powerful non-state actor like Hezbollah.
The Broader Israeli-Iranian Confrontation: A Direct Exchange
The situation in Lebanon is inextricably linked to the broader, intensifying confrontation between Israel and Iran. Simultaneously with the developments in Lebanon, a new wave of Israeli airstrikes struck targets within Iran. These strikes followed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s unequivocal pledge to continue military action against Tehran. "There is much more to come," Netanyahu asserted, a sentiment echoed by three Israeli officials who suggested that Iran was unlikely to accept US demands in any new round of negotiations, signaling a long and arduous path ahead. The nature of these strikes, while not fully detailed, is understood to target military infrastructure, strategic assets, or facilities linked to Iran’s nuclear program or its regional proxy network.
In a direct and ominous response, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a statement on Tuesday, threatening to launch "massive missile and drone attacks" against Israeli forces in northern Israel and areas near Gaza "without restraint." This threat was made conditional on Israel’s failure to halt its attacks in Lebanon and Palestine. The IRGC’s declaration marks a significant escalation, moving beyond proxy warfare to a direct threat of large-scale conventional retaliation against Israeli territory. Such a direct exchange of fire between Iran and Israel would represent a dangerous new chapter in their decades-long rivalry, with potentially catastrophic consequences for regional stability.
International Reactions and Diplomatic Stalemate
The escalating crisis has drawn considerable international concern, although concrete diplomatic breakthroughs remain elusive. US President Donald Trump’s earlier optimistic assessment of a potential de-escalation agreement now appears increasingly remote. The United States, a staunch ally of Israel, has consistently sought to contain Iranian influence in the region while also expressing concerns about broader regional instability. However, the current trajectory of events suggests that diplomatic efforts are struggling to keep pace with the rapid militarization of the conflict.
The United Nations, which has a peacekeeping force (UNIFIL) deployed in southern Lebanon under UNSCR 1701, has repeatedly called for restraint and adherence to the ceasefire lines. Resolution 1701, adopted after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, calls for a cessation of hostilities, respect for the Blue Line (the demarcation line between Lebanon and Israel), and the establishment of an area free of any unauthorized armed personnel, assets, and weapons between the Blue Line and the Litani River. Israel’s stated intention to control territory up to the Litani directly challenges the spirit and provisions of this resolution, which also mandates the Lebanese Armed Forces to be the sole armed force in the area.
Regional powers, including Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, view Iran’s expanding influence with alarm and are deeply concerned about the destabilizing impact of a wider conflict. While some may quietly welcome any action that weakens Hezbollah, the prospect of a full-blown regional war poses significant risks to their own security and economic interests, particularly oil flows through critical waterways. The international community largely advocates for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and adherence to international law regarding territorial integrity, making Israel’s proposed "defensive buffer zone" a contentious issue that could further isolate it on the global stage.
Historical Context and Precedents
The current tensions are deeply rooted in a complex history of conflict between Israel and Lebanon. The creation of Hezbollah in the early 1980s, largely in response to Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon and its subsequent occupation of the south, fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape. Hezbollah evolved from a resistance movement into a powerful political party and armed group, increasingly integrated into the Lebanese fabric but maintaining strong ideological and military ties to Iran.
The concept of a "security zone" in southern Lebanon is not new for Israel. From 1985 to 2000, Israel maintained a self-declared security zone, initially with the South Lebanon Army (SLA), a proxy militia, to protect its northern border from attacks. The unilateral withdrawal in 2000, prompted by heavy casualties and growing domestic opposition, was followed by a period of relative calm before the 2006 war. The current declaration by Israel to establish a similar zone, especially extending to the Litani River, evokes painful memories for many Lebanese and raises concerns about a renewed, long-term occupation. This historical precedent informs both Hezbollah’s "existential threat" assessment and the broader regional apprehension.
Geopolitical and Humanitarian Implications
The implications of these escalating developments are far-reaching and potentially catastrophic. Geopolitically, the region stands on the precipice of a broader conflict that could draw in multiple state and non-state actors, with unpredictable consequences. A direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran, either through proxy or direct strikes, risks regional destabilization on an unprecedented scale.
From a humanitarian perspective, the consequences for civilian populations in Lebanon, Israel, and potentially Iran are dire. Lebanon, already grappling with one of the world’s worst economic crises, a collapsing infrastructure, and a fragile political system, can ill afford another war. Renewed conflict would undoubtedly lead to massive displacement, further refugee flows, destruction of critical infrastructure, and an exacerbation of an already severe humanitarian crisis. The Lebanese people, particularly those in the south, would bear the brunt of any renewed Israeli military operations or Hezbollah retaliation. Similarly, Israeli civilians in the north would face constant threat from rockets and missiles, and any direct strikes on Iran could lead to significant casualties.
Economically, a full-scale regional war would devastate the already struggling economies of Lebanon and potentially impact global energy markets. Investment would flee, trade routes would be disrupted, and the prospects for recovery in war-torn areas would diminish drastically. The international community would face immense pressure to provide humanitarian aid and engage in costly reconstruction efforts, while also navigating complex diplomatic challenges to de-escalate the conflict.
Outlook: A Dangerous Trajectory
The current trajectory points towards a perilous future, with hardline stances on both sides diminishing the prospects for peaceful resolution. Israel’s declaration of a "defensive buffer" and renewed strikes on Iran, coupled with Iran’s direct threats, indicate a hardening of positions. The unprecedented expulsion of the Iranian ambassador by Lebanon highlights the internal fragmentation and the desperate struggle for sovereignty within the country. Unless significant diplomatic interventions are made by international powers, or a de-escalatory path is found by the principal actors, the region appears to be heading towards a period of prolonged and intensified conflict, with potentially devastating human and geopolitical costs. The shadow war is increasingly becoming a direct confrontation, demanding urgent and decisive international engagement to avert a wider catastrophe.
