Welcome to today’s episode of *Deep Look*, where we are joined by Middle East expert Mr. Haydar Oruç. Today, we will be discussing the long-standing and recently intensified Israel-Hezbollah and Israel-Hamas conflicts. We aim to explore the origins of these wars, their international dimensions, and the impact they have on both the region and global politics.
In recent months, the escalation of attacks in Lebanon and Gaza has led to significant loss of life and severe humanitarian crises. Within this context, we will evaluate Israel’s strategies, as well as the roles Hezbollah and Hamas play in the region, and the potential future of these conflicts. Mr. Haydar, with your experience and analysis of the region, we hope to gain a clearer understanding of these complex issues.
To begin, what are Israel’s strategic objectives behind its escalating attacks on Lebanon and Gaza? What is Israel aiming for, and how do these actions impact Hezbollah and Hamas? Before diving deeper, let’s briefly introduce the key players. Who is Israel, who are Hamas and Hezbollah, and what conditions brought them into conflict?
Both Hamas and Hezbollah emerged as resistance movements in the 1980s to end Israeli occupation — Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Over time, these groups evolved from armed factions into political movements. For instance, Hamas won the 2006 elections following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, while Hezbollah became a prominent political force in Lebanon after Israel’s 2000 withdrawal.
Despite Israel’s earlier withdrawals, the country has remained committed to neutralizing both organizations. The conflict has fluctuated, with moments of intense escalation. A pivotal moment came on October 7, 2023, when Hamas’s armed wing, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, launched the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, disrupting Israel’s long-held image of military and intelligence superiority.
This attack has been a turning point, leading to Israel’s severe response, which has drawn criticism for violating international law. What were Israel’s initial objectives in this operation, and what does the future hold for the conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah?
The events surrounding October 7, where Israel accused Hamas of committing widespread atrocities, were used to build a global narrative of aggression against Hamas, much like the post-9/11 response in the U.S. However, many of these claims, such as beheadings and abuses, were later revealed to be false by Israeli sources themselves.
Despite this, the initial impact was enough for Israel to solidify support from the U.S. and bolster its military and political efforts, focusing not just on Hamas but also on expanding operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Israel capitalized on this opportunity to extend its influence, using military strikes and targeted assassinations in Lebanon, Syria, and even Iraq. The assassination of key figures such as Ismail Haniyeh and attacks on Hezbollah’s leadership are part of Israel’s broader strategy. However, despite these efforts, Hezbollah has continued to resist, maintaining its stance against Israeli operations.
The conflict has broader regional implications, with Israel’s long-term goal seemingly aimed at weakening Iran’s influence. Netanyahu’s remarks about “changing the maps” suggest that the confrontation could escalate beyond Hamas and Hezbollah, drawing in regional players like Iran and possibly triggering a larger, U.S.-involved conflict. The attacks in places like Yemen and the targeting of Iranian assets further illustrate Israel’s desire to reshape the region strategically.
Regarding the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah, while Israel has claimed responsibility for his death, there has been no direct admission from Nasrallah’s side. This silence could indicate strategic ambiguity on Israel’s part, aiming to destabilize Hezbollah without provoking an outright response. Meanwhile, Israel continues its military actions, potentially seeking to create a buffer zone and reduce Hezbollah’s ability to launch attacks.
There was a breakdown in communication during a key event involving Nasrallah. On that particular day, he had to physically attend a meeting but was only able to communicate remotely, which raised questions about his whereabouts. Later, it was suggested by some sources, including a French newspaper and actors within Lebanon, that Iranian agents had informed Israel about Nasrallah’s location, leading to rumors that Iran might have betrayed him. While these claims remain unconfirmed, they stirred concern about the potential decryption of Hezbollah’s network and the possibility of Iranian complicity in Nasrallah’s assassination.
Despite these speculations, Hezbollah has not shown signs of internal distress regarding this possible betrayal. However, there may be concerns about future vulnerabilities in Iran, particularly about internal agents working for Israel. There are also suggestions that Iran, after the martyrdom of Ismail Haniyeh, may have been involved in covering up the details of the attack, potentially shielding internal networks from public scrutiny.
The alleged involvement of Iran in Nasrallah’s assassination underscores the complex dynamics between Iran, Hezbollah, and Israel. Israel, known for its intelligence capabilities and cooperation with Western agencies like MI6, has demonstrated its reach, even conducting major operations within Iran itself. While there is no definitive proof of Iran’s role in Nasrallah’s death, these events highlight the ongoing tensions and proxy battles in the region.
Iran’s broader role in these conflicts, dating back to the 1979 revolution and evolving through the Arab Spring, has seen the country use proxy actors to extend its influence in the region. These actors include groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria. Iran’s regional power peaked around 2015, but since the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal under Trump, Iran has faced increasing pressure. Its proxy networks, while still influential, have been weakened by economic and military setbacks.
Iran’s strategy seems to focus on survival, particularly avoiding direct confrontation with Israel or the U.S., preferring to use proxy actors to maintain influence. However, as seen with the assassination of key figures like Qasem Soleimani and Nasrallah, Iran’s ability to protect its regional assets is being tested. The regime’s primary goal appears to be maintaining power, even if it means sacrificing its proxies.
This ongoing struggle, particularly between Israel and Iran, suggests that Israel is aiming to neutralize Iran’s influence before it can reach full nuclear capability. Iran, aware of these efforts, has adopted a more cautious, patient approach, hoping to delay confrontation until it can solidify its position as a nuclear power, much like North Korea. However, the internal pressures in Iran, including possible civil unrest, indicate that the regime is under significant strain, further complicating its regional ambitions.
Hezbollah’s leader’s assassination will not bring an end to the broader conflict. The struggle is likely to continue on the battlefield. Despite Iran’s ongoing efforts, it seems that its influence and deterrent power have diminished, and neither its proxies nor other actors have much faith in its ability to protect them. The regime in Iran may eventually face more severe threats if it continues on this path.
Regarding Hezbollah’s situation in Lebanon, its current power and influence are in question. Since its founding in the 1980s, Hezbollah has transformed from a resistance movement into a political and military force closely tied to Iran. Over time, criticism has emerged from within Lebanon, accusing Hezbollah of deviating from its original goal of defending the country and becoming a tool of Iranian foreign policy, particularly after its involvement in the Syrian civil war.
Lebanon is a complex, multi-sectarian country with a population that includes Shiites (around 27%), Sunnis (around 25-27%), and Christians, along with other groups. Hezbollah initially gained support for its role in resisting Israeli occupation, but its actions in Syria and involvement in regional conflicts have cost it credibility, especially among Sunni Muslims.
In recent years, Hezbollah has maintained significant military and political power in Lebanon, but Israel’s recent attacks, especially following the killing of Nasrallah, have raised doubts about its future. The organization’s political and military strength may be weakened, and it’s unclear whether Hezbollah will be able to maintain its hold on Lebanon. Iran will likely continue to support Hezbollah, but how much it can do remains uncertain.
The possibility of an Israeli ground operation north of the Litani River could escalate the situation further. If Hezbollah manages to recover, it may continue its struggle against Israel, but internal divisions within Lebanon and the region could limit its effectiveness. The future of Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon and the broader region is uncertain, and much depends on how the conflict develops and the level of Iranian support it can secure.
The conflicts involving Hezbollah and its interactions with other sectarian and political actors in Lebanon remain complex. A key question is whether Hezbollah, primarily a Shiite group, will act only against its traditional enemies—those it deems threats, such as Israel—or if its actions will also provoke other groups, including Sunni Muslims and Christians, into conflict.
As for the humanitarian dimension of the conflict, there is growing concern over the escalation in Lebanon. The situation mirrors some aspects of the conflict in Gaza, with similar tactics used by Israel, such as airstrikes and ground operations. Displacement has been significant, with hundreds of thousands of people reportedly forced to flee their homes, and civilian casualties rising.
The international response has been mixed. While global organizations like the United Nations have expressed concern, many Western countries, including the United States, continue to support Israel’s actions, framing them as self-defense. Meanwhile, the international legal system, including courts dealing with war crimes, has been criticized for being slow and ineffective in addressing alleged violations of humanitarian law.
Calls for stronger international intervention and accountability have been growing, but concrete actions to halt the violence have been limited. The situation remains volatile, and future developments could lead to even greater displacement and loss of life.
The situation will persist, as we’ve explained our goals and objectives before you. There is Syria, Iran, and Iraq—these countries have already suffered enough due to attacks orchestrated by the U.S., aiming to completely destabilize these regions. Their goal is to divide the area further, and establish a puppet state akin to Israel—a terrorist state in the region. This ambition directly impacts us, threatening our national interests and security.
Despite this, there hasn’t been enough of a response from other countries regarding Israel’s actions, except for a few. Even though public opinion and societies are reacting more strongly than ever against Israel, governments continue to support Israel for various reasons. The injustices committed by Israel are well-known, but the reasons behind this international silence need to be examined in depth. Why do these nations fail to stop Israel, despite understanding the violations taking place?
A clear example of this is America. In the U.S. Congress, Netanyahu was welcomed as an honored guest and received repeated standing ovations—not because the members love Israel or its genocidal prime minister, but because of the influence of the Jewish lobby, which is deeply ingrained in the American political system. Many congress members have either been influenced or are directly tied to these interests. This has become a routine practice, especially during U.S. elections where candidates compete to show how much they will support Israel. Israel reads this situation well and uses it to further its goals.
Looking forward, you asked how this war will evolve. The future looks bleak unless something drastic happens. If you had asked me months ago, I would have said that international court rulings, arrest warrants, and a formal decision declaring Israel a rogue state could stop its actions. But now, with the U.S. aiding and abetting Israel, those avenues seem closed.
There are two key factors at play: one is America, and the other is Israel’s internal politics. Even within Israel, the people cannot stop their government’s actions, and internationally, the U.S. is facilitating these genocidal atrocities rather than preventing them. America is not just supporting Israel, but has become complicit in these crimes. The statements from U.S. politicians, like Lindsey Graham, reflect that America sees Israel’s actions as parallel to its own past conduct in Afghanistan and Iraq—implying that if America wasn’t punished, neither should Israel be.
Netanyahu references this repeatedly, saying, “You did this in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and faced no consequences. Why should you oppose us for defending ourselves now?” This rhetoric sums up the global impunity surrounding Israel’s actions.
Investigations and lawsuits are underway, but unfortunately, the part of America that could stop Israel has not taken decisive action. This could have been done as early as October—it’s that simple. By cutting off the flow of weapons and ammunition to Israel, its ability to sustain attacks in Gaza would have been significantly diminished, as Israel’s weaponry and inventory were limited. For example, even the Iron Dome’s missiles come from the U.S., and 60-70% of the bombs used in Gaza were supplied by America. This entire effort is backed by the U.S., both politically and militarily.
America has shielded Israel from sanctions and decisions by the UN Security Council, and has even pressured the International Criminal Court (ICC) to delay its actions. Both the previous and current prosecutors at the ICC have been under pressure not to proceed with cases against Israel. In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed a law that prevents the prosecution of American soldiers in the ICC, and even authorizes military action if necessary to prevent such trials. A similar protection is being extended to Israel.
In terms of political support, America has played a pivotal role in allowing Israel’s right-wing government to continue its policies. Netanyahu, despite facing massive protests from Israelis—including families of hostages—has refused to step down because doing so would leave him vulnerable to corruption charges. As long as he stays in power, he will prolong the conflict for his own political survival.
Unfortunately, we are left with very few options. The only hope might be for regional actors like Turkey to form a coalition strong enough to stand up to Israel. But as it stands, international law and America’s influence have made it almost impossible to stop Israel through conventional means. Much like the apartheid regime in South Africa, the international community has failed to isolate Israel. The only difference is that the U.S. was not as supportive of apartheid as it is of Israel today.
Ultimately, unless a significant power rises to oppose Israel, it will continue to expand its influence, claiming more territory under the guise of self-defense. The situation has reached a point where Israel will push as far as it can, unchecked by any meaningful opposition. The international community’s condemnations are not enough; Israel is driven by a deeply entrenched agenda, and it seems there is no power strong enough to stop it right now.
Thank you for this insightful conversation, Professor. We have discussed critical aspects of the Middle East conflict today, focusing on the political, military, and humanitarian dimensions. Your analysis has helped us understand the situation more deeply, and we hope to see a peaceful resolution to these conflicts in the future. Thanks again for sharing your expertise with us.
Good evening, and best regards.
