Israel is expanding its military operations in southern Lebanon on both sides of the Litani River, raising questions over whether the river still serves as an operational dividing line between the areas, Lebanese military experts said.

Israeli forces have targeted areas south of the Litani, including Mansouri and Wadi Saluki, as well as areas to the north, including Nabatiyeh, the Ali al-Taher heights and Zawtar.

The Israeli army carried out two controlled explosions in Majdal Zoun and fired machine-gun bursts toward Shaqra and Baraachit as residents returned to their homes. Israeli military vehicles also advanced toward Wadi Saluki between Mais al-Jabal and Shaqra.

Israeli forces opened fire on young men in Shaqra, while artillery shelling damaged a municipal vehicle without causing injuries, according to local reports.

The operations also included sweeping operations toward Beit Yahoun, shelling around Nabatiyeh al-Fawqa, the outskirts of Hadatha and Habbariyeh, and an airstrike on Mansouri. Israeli drones were also reported flying over Beirut and its southern suburbs.

The operations have intensified debate over the significance of the Litani following Israel’s extensive military activity in the Ali al-Taher heights, which lie effectively north of the river. Israel has said it destroyed tunnels and military facilities there while continuing explosions and airstrikes south of the Litani.

Israel Moves Beyond Litani

Retired Brig. Gen. Naji Malaeb said Israel’s expanding operations were consistent with a strategy of widening the scope of its military activity regardless of the depth of its incursions.

“We are accustomed to the Israeli strategy of expanding the scope of operations regardless of the depth of the incursion,” Malaeb told Asharq Al-Awsat, citing the Gaza war, where Israeli operations began in northern Gaza and Jabalia before extending to Rafah despite U.S. warnings at the time about red lines.

Malaeb said the operational line Israel had established in southern Lebanon extended between 6 and 8 kilometers (4 to 5 miles) into Lebanese territory.

He said any Israeli pullback to a line closer to the border, at around 4 km (2.5 miles), could be driven by internal military considerations, including a shortage of troops, the demobilization of some reservists and their return to civilian jobs, as well as the possible need for additional forces in the West Bank if tensions there escalate.

But he said Israeli operations were no longer confined to the area south of the Litani.

“This line was initially defined south of the Litani, but Israel has crossed it in Zawtar, Beaufort Castle, Nabatiyeh and the Ali al-Taher heights,” he said.

Malaeb warned that an Israeli presence north of the river could serve additional strategic purposes.

He pointed to earlier studies on the possibility of exploiting the difference in elevation between the Litani River and the Galilee and Lake Tiberias areas to facilitate the movement of water.

“Israel has always talked about its need for water, and it already draws heavily on the waters of the Wazzani and Hasbani,” he said.

Strategic Importance of Mansouri and the Heights

Malaeb said the scale of the explosions in Mansouri could indicate the presence of tunnels or underground facilities, while also stressing the strategic importance of the area.

“The purpose of Mansouri is to cut the road toward Naqoura and use its high ground to exert fire control over the direction of Tyre without having to enter the city,” he said.

But he said the greatest strategic concern was the high ground rather than the coast.

“The focus is more on the heights than the coast, toward Kfar Roummane and Rihan and all the way to Mount Hermon,” Malaeb said. “In this way, the Bekaa can be cut off from the south.”

Lebanon as One Operational Area

Retired Brig. Gen. Saeed Qozah said the distinction between areas north and south of the Litani had no basis in the international decisions and agreements governing Lebanon.

Israel, he said, treats Lebanese territory as a single operational area.

“Neither U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 nor the November 2024 ceasefire agreement made any distinction between north and south of the Litani,” Qozah told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“That division was an invention of Hezbollah and an argument it used to say that if it remained north of the Litani, no one had anything to do with it,” he said.

Qozah said neither Resolution 1559, Resolution 1701, the November 2024 ceasefire agreement nor the framework agreement contained any provision dividing Lebanon along the Litani.

“The reference is to Lebanese territory,” he said, adding that Lebanon’s Constitution and the Taif Agreement also treat the country as a single territorial unit rather than distinguishing between areas north and south of the river.

“For Israel, all of Lebanon is a single operational area,” Qozah said.

He said Israel was not concerned about where Hezbollah weapons were located if it considered them a threat, regardless of whether they were north or south of the Litani.

“Even if Hezbollah is currently weakened and no longer poses the same level of threat, Israel, particularly after everything it has experienced, will not allow it to rebuild its strength and resume operations against Israel, even 20 years from now,” he said.

Qozah pointed to Israel’s strikes on Nabatiyeh as evidence that the area north of the Litani was already part of its operational calculations.

He said that after the 2006 war, Israel had treated the area south of the Litani as a zone where military operations should not take place, even though Resolution 1701 did not formally divide Lebanon into two separate areas.

At the time, he said, Israel believed that pushing Hezbollah deeper into Lebanon and drawing it further into the country’s political system could distance the group from confrontation with Israel.

“But it later became clear that things did not develop in that direction,” Qozah said.

Israel continued monitoring what it considered violations of Resolution 1701, as well as Hezbollah’s military preparations and construction activities, he said.

“Israel was therefore preparing in parallel for the operations it carried out later, the consequences of which became apparent after the war with Israel began,” Qozah  said.