Lebanon fears Israel’s election could pave the way for expanded military operations and a prolonged occupation of the south rather than an Israeli withdrawal and an end to attacks, as negotiations remain stalled and Washington’s willingness to pressure Israel remains uncertain.

A diplomatic source following the Lebanese file told Erem News that the election’s impact would depend not only on who wins but also on the next government’s decisions regarding Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon, negotiations with Beirut and guarantees against renewed war.

One possible scenario is continued Israeli military and security pressure alongside efforts to impose new political and security arrangements along the border, the source said. A change in leadership could alter how Israel pursues that policy without necessarily changing its stated security objectives.

The source added that the next phase would also depend on whether the Trump administration was prepared to exert concrete pressure on both sides to reach an agreement that could be implemented. Without clear mechanisms for an Israeli withdrawal and an end to attacks, Lebanon could face prolonged escalation or a wider military confrontation if diplomatic efforts fail.

No guarantee of a change in Israeli policy

International affairs researcher Ahmad Al-Anani told Erem News that neither a victory for Benjamin Netanyahu nor one for his rival, Gadi Eisenkot, would necessarily bring a fundamental change in Israeli policy toward Lebanon.

Eisenkot should not automatically be viewed as a less hard-line alternative, Al-Anani said, noting that before the war he had proposed destroying Beirut’s southern suburbs.

The main difference between the two candidates could lie in how they manage the confrontation and the extent of any escalation, rather than in their strategic objectives, he said.

A Netanyahu victory could mean continued military operations and pressure on the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah. An Eisenkot government, meanwhile, could reassess aspects of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel and Washington’s role in them.

But the election alone is unlikely to resolve the central disputes over Hezbollah’s weapons and Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon, Al-Anani said. Any shift in Israeli policy would depend in large part on Washington’s willingness to support negotiations that produce clear, enforceable arrangements rather than simply manage the escalation.

Langlois warns of expanded Israeli presence

In an October 23 article in The National Interest, foreign policy analyst Alexander Langlois warned that Israel’s occupation of parts of southern Lebanon could become indefinite and expand regardless of the election outcome.

“This month’s Israeli elections may escalate rather than wind down the Israeli military occupation of southern Lebanon,” Langlois wrote.

He argued that a change in government would not guarantee progress because opposition parties also hold hard-line positions on Hezbollah. He warned that Israel’s presence could become “a deeper and more expanded Israeli presence in the country after election season.”

The assessment comes amid stalled negotiations under the U.S.-brokered Trilateral Framework, which is intended to secure Hezbollah’s disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. Langlois said the talks had failed to make progress, leaving both objectives out of reach.

He also argued that Israel has considerable influence over the framework’s implementation because it determines when it withdraws from areas in Lebanon and, alongside the United States, when it considers disarmament there sufficient. That leverage, he wrote, gives Israel an incentive to prolong the process while undermining Lebanese efforts to secure a withdrawal.

A prolonged Israeli presence could also make Hezbollah’s disarmament more difficult. The group has cited resistance to Israeli occupation as a central justification for retaining its weapons, while the history of Israel’s 1982-2000 occupation continues to shape the debate over disarmament.

Washington holds key leverage

Langlois argued that the Trump administration has the capacity to pressure Israel to withdraw but is unlikely to make challenging Israeli policy a priority in every case.

He also warned that Washington could turn its attention away from Lebanon as it considers a direct escalation against Iran, further reducing the prospects for progress on the Lebanese front.

The diplomatic source cited by Erem News likewise stressed that the future of a settlement would depend on whether Washington moved beyond supporting negotiations and applied practical pressure to secure implementation, particularly an end to Israeli attacks, clear border arrangements and an Israeli withdrawal.

Without explicit guarantees, any agreement could unravel over disputes about its implementation, leaving Lebanon exposed to renewed escalation even after the election, the source warned.

Langlois cautioned that allowing the conflict to persist would increase the risk of further escalation and make the situation harder to resolve. He argued that Washington should use its leverage to press Israel to withdraw rather than allow the current situation to become entrenched.