The Lebanese diasporas, famed for their accomplishments and resilience across the globe, have been perplexed in the last few weeks over the fate of their much-awaited summer vacation, which they usually spend back home, enjoying the Mediterranean climate and feasting on the copious appetizing dishes Lebanese cuisine has to offer.

The recent escalations between Hezbollah and Israel on Lebanon’s southern border and the mounting threat by the latter of an impending large-scale military operation has reminded everyone involved, chiefly Hezbollah, that the supposed end of the war in Gaza or Rafah does not necessarily mean a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, as Iran and its so-called axis of resistance wish.

Much of this delusion by Iran and its proxies is anchored in the concept of unification of the fronts. This notion, peddled by Iran, maintains that Iran has the ability to fight Israel on many fronts and, when the time comes, destroy Israel and supposedly throw the Jews into the sea, or so they claimed.

Ironically, when the moment of truth arrived on October 7, Iran and its main proxy Hezbollah just stood aside, and rather than unleashing hell and diving in head-on, was content with what ended up as extremist theatrics, or what Hezbollah branded as a limited war of distraction, supposedly aimed at distracting and occupying the Israeli army and keeping them fighting on two fronts, theoretically helping Hamas win.

Coincidentally, one of the main champions – and a zealot for this unification rhetoric – was the late Hamas commander Saleh al-Arouri, who was killed in an Israeli drone strike on his office deep in the heart of Hezbollah-dominated southern suburbs of Beirut a few weeks after Hamas launched operation Al Aqsa Flood.

Be that as it may, Hezbollah assumes that if it continues to run this limited low-intensity warfare, Israel, once they are done with destroying what remains of Hamas and Gaza, will simply agree to return to UNSCR 1701, which the current Biden administration or even a Republican one would ensure.

This line of scheming by Iran and its executive arm Hezbollah greatly contradicts its declared working ethos. Yet the separation of the fronts model in the psyche of these tacticians might be enough to convince Israel as well as the international community that militant Shia Islam is a more rational being compared to the Sunni brand, which had no reservations in pulling off the Al Aqsa Flood or the 9/11 attacks.

Unfortunately, such a mindset is shared by many Lebanese, including some who are outwardly opponents of Iran’s expansionist plan in the region. Such thinking assumes that the US can ultimately curb the Israelis and that Iran has no vested interest in declaring war on Israel. Many of these assumptions are erroneously grounded in previous encounters between the two sides, mainly the war of 2006, which ultimately led to the adoption of a ceasefire and the supposed withdrawal of Hezbollah from the south of the Litani River, a feat which the latest conflict proved farcical.

A lot has happened since 2006, changes which the Lebanese who are under the occupation of Hezbollah and the corrupt political system refuse to acknowledge. In 2006, UNSCR 1701 was able to bail out both the Ehud Olmert cabinet and Hezbollah through the diplomatic efforts of the Fouad al-Saniora cabinet—a cabinet which Hezbollah and its allies walked out on in an attempt to implode it.

This cabinet was respected by the international community and, more importantly, the Arab Gulf States, thus making it possible to hammer out a cessation of hostilities and open up the way for the reconstruction phase.

In reality, none of the aforementioned conditions is even possible, as the Lebanese government in the ongoing conflict is not even at the table, and Lebanon is merely a delivery vessel for Iran.

As it stands, contrary to 2006, the international community is directly negotiating with Iran and urging it to use its influence to supposedly convince Hamas to de-escalate and ultimately agree to hand over the Israeli hostages – a scenario which seems more and more unattainable as time goes by.

What the Lebanese are left with is an embattled Israeli society, which has realized that Iran’s restraint is not necessarily a good thing, but rather an omen that Israel is being encircled by Iran’s proxies, both in Lebanon and Syria.

Consequently, the security doctrine which has regulated Israel’s relationship with Iran since 2006 is no longer sustainable or beneficial to Israel. Thus, the debate within the Israeli military establishment centers around the challenge that Iran’s proxies pose to the security and supposed existence of the country.

In the 1980s, Uriel Lubrani, the former Israeli ambassador to the Imperial State of Iran and the coordinator of the activities of Israeli forces in occupied southern Lebanon, envisioned a security ethos that would supposedly protect Israel from the Palestinian threat and later Hezbollah.

This centered around the creation of a security zone that would act as a buffer state. In this direction, Lubrani oversaw the development of the South Lebanon Army, a collaborator militia that prevented the PLO and later Hezbollah from accessing the Israeli border.

In 2006, the adoption of UNSCR 1701 was a reconstruction of the Lubrani doctrine, imposing a tacit agreement between Israel and Hezbollah in which the latter guards the Israeli border and ensures that no serious military hardware is stocked south of the Litani River.

On October 8, when Nasrallah decided to declare war on the state of Israel, the Lubrani doctrine, which worked for four decades, was shattered, necessitating a new search for a policy to neutralize Iran. Along these lines, the Israeli army and the political establishment might not be in a hurry to invade Lebanon simply because they have yet to come up with scenarios or a new doctrine that would secure their objectives.

While the Lebanese are waiting for a full-scale Israeli war to commence, they fail to realize that they, as a nation complacent and abducted by Hezbollah, are in the midst of a war that will not end well for them.

The post-October 7 world does not have room for a Lebanon that does not realize that years of corruption and impunity and the unethical demeanor of the Lebanese political establishment have turned this small state into a security threat to the entire region.

If the Lebanese do not rise from their deep hibernation and reclaim the sovereignty of their land, given all the signs, a repeat of past Israeli wars would be a best-case scenario.

In this respect, the words of the renowned historian Arnold Toynbee, that “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder,” are a reminder to the Lebanese that if they decide to stay captives of Hezbollah, they might be the ones committing suicide.