The battle of the unity of arenas… How did the bombing of the Southern “Suburb” turn into a regional explosion?

If the Israeli assault on the southern suburb on Sunday evening, which resulted in civilian casualties, was a test of the seriousness of Iran’s commitment to the equation of the unity of arenas and establishing the cessation of aggression on Lebanon as a main condition for de-escalation and ending the war, then the Iranian strikes that targeted the north of the occupied Palestinian territories only about 7 hours later, for the first time since the ceasefire, provided a decisive result for this test. Iran—and the Axis of Resistance—is prepared to return to large-scale fighting if the Israeli enemy doesn’t commit to stopping its operations against Lebanon, even if there are positive negotiating indicators on other files.

Dherar Al-Tayyeb – Al-Khabar Al-Yemeni:

Iran had clearly stated that it would bomb Israel in response to any assault on Beirut or its southern suburb, and then it demonstrated that practically and without any hesitation.

For Israel, this is an unambiguous major blow. Although Iran had already proven during the past period its success in imposing the reality of the unity of arenas by forcing the enemy to reduce the scope of its operations against Lebanon, using the Strait of Hormuz card, and the negotiating firmness that Trump encountered, Israel remained insistent on creating a maneuver space aimed at separating Lebanon from any American agreement with Iran. It tried to portray its ongoing operations in southern Lebanon and the direct negotiations with the Lebanese authority as a success in separating the arenas and establishing the principle of “freedom of action.” However, the heavy losses incurred by the Israeli army due to the resistance’s operations, given Hezbollah’s steadfastness in its position, made it difficult to market this image. Because the bombing of the southern suburb was certainly linked to the enemy’s need to deal with the Lebanese arena predicament, the Iranian strikes were an embarrassing blow to Israel, as they clearly showed that Israel does not possess any “freedom of action,” that it has not succeeded in separating the arenas, and that dealing with the Lebanese arena has become a matter of regional war. It is no longer possible to completely ignore this new reality that embodies an Israeli strategic failure, not only in dealing with the Lebanese threat but in the entire conflict.

Danny Citrinowicz, a former official in Israeli military intelligence and an expert at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, says that the Iranian response to the targeting of the southern suburb “embodies the extent of the colossal strategic failure of the recent campaign against Iran, as Israel now faces a difficult dilemma: either respond and risk a direct confrontation with the US president or refrain from responding and allow Iran to impose a new equation that significantly restricts Israel’s freedom to act against Hezbollah in the future.”

He adds that “instead of overthrowing the Iranian regime,” which was supposed to lead to the collapse of the Axis of Resistance, “Israel finds itself with less freedom of action, while Iran enjoys greater self-confidence.”

Israeli writer Amichai Atali says, “The equation the Iranians are trying to draw is, of course, a drastic retreat from the one that prevailed here until the last war, which is that if we touch the nerve center of the enemy closest to us, we will be bombarded with ballistic missiles from a distance of two thousand kilometers,” considering that of all that has happened over the past three years, “this is Netanyahu’s most important strategic test by far.”

The Israeli army did not avoid the issue of the unity of arenas equation, stating after the Iranian strikes that “Tehran is trying to create a new equation by firing directly at Israel in response to the Israeli army’s attacks on the southern suburb,” announcing that it “will continue operations throughout Lebanon,” but it didn’t immediately speak of a direction to strike Iran.

Later, the Israeli chief of staff said that the enemy entity is waiting for a “green light” to attack Iran.

The newspaper “Yedioth Ahronoth” stated at the time that “from Israel’s perspective, not responding to Iran will, in any case, lead to a loss of warning capability and will send a message that it is no longer able to defend itself based on political leadership considerations,” indicating that “the US sent a message to Israel that it is worthwhile to wait a few days to see if an agreement can be reached, and if not, joint action will be taken.”

This was consistent with the statements of US President Donald Trump following the Iranian strikes, in which he said he would ask Netanyahu not to attack Iran and claimed that Tehran and Washington were close to reaching an agreement. However, the assumption underlying this proposition, that the Israeli attack on the southern suburb was not coordinated with the US, is questionable. The head of the Iranian negotiating delegation, Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, affirmed that the US gave a “green light” to execute that attack.

Citrinowicz says, “Trump is facing an extremely difficult strategic reality. The options available to him are not good, and he seems to prefer reaching an agreement with Iran at almost any cost over sliding into a wider regional conflict.”

But any desire by Trump to reach an agreement with Iran will always conflict with his constant commitment to appease Israel. Therefore, what the US President’s statements clarified was only the concern to avoid a return to large-scale fighting and not to collapse the negotiations, even without reaching an agreement (negotiation for the sake of negotiation).

Oil prices had indeed fallen in recent days due to negotiating indicators. Despite the US exchanging military strikes that included Iran targeting bases in the Gulf, Iran continued to allow many ships to cross the Strait of Hormuz. However, the targeting of Beirut’s southern suburb significantly recharged the atmosphere and pushed oil prices up again.

Exchange of Strikes:

After hours of coordination and communication with the US, Israel launched limited attacks on Iran on Monday morning, which was expected. The exchange of strikes continued for hours before both sides announced the cessation of military operations, but with an Iranian pledge to respond to any Israeli escalation against Lebanon.

Oil prices fell again as the exchange of strikes stopped. Trump may have felt that he succeeded in containing the escalation, but the truth is that things will never be the same, as the equation proven by the Iranian response to targeting the southern suburb still exists, and the Israeli army can no longer escalate against Lebanon without a regional explosion occurring.

Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israeli military intelligence and former executive director of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, says: “Israel cannot accept the current equation resulting from the ceasefire in Lebanon, where Iran responds to Israeli attacks in the southern suburb or in southern Lebanon. Israel must change the rules of the game.”

Since the US didn’t directly engage in the recent wave of strikes, fearing the return of large-scale regional fighting, which made Israel appear “alone,” Yadlin believes that the success of the mission to decouple the Lebanese and Iranian arenas falls on Trump, either by concluding an agreement that serves Israel’s interests or by not concluding any agreement at all.

The hypothesis of a disagreement between Netanyahu and Trump will always remain questionable. However, it is clear that Israel is keen to ensure that its interests remain a priority for the US and that there is no room for Washington to act for its own considerations, such as entering into a preliminary understanding with Iran to de-escalate and mitigate the repercussions of the global economic crisis resulting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

While some American analysts believe that Israel has now established a “pretext” to drag the US into escalation, merely returning to war does not serve as a goal, as the US reluctance to directly engage in the latest explosion, whether agreed upon with Israel or not, is due to the fact that Iran has succeeded in imposing genuine regional deterrence that makes the cost of any escalation against it very high and extremely dangerous. Therefore, Israel and the US are partners in the same predicament, unless the Israelis’ goal is for Washington to sacrifice itself in a “suicidal” manner.

Yemeni Intervention:

After the swift Iranian response to the targeting of Beirut’s southern suburb, Yemen’s engagement in the escalation on Monday morning came as an additional surprise, as the Yemeni Armed Forces launched a missile barrage at sensitive targets in occupied “Jaffa” and also announced the re-imposition of a complete naval blockade on Israeli navigation in the Red Sea.

This intervention gave more momentum and effectiveness to the “unity of arenas” equation that formed the main headline of the recent regional explosion, as the Yemeni move reinforced the Iran-led stance that any escalation and collapse of the ceasefire on one front will involve the entire region. Undoubtedly, this strengthens American fears of sliding into a wide-scale escalation.

The speed of the Yemeni intervention was this time remarkable and reflected the existence of broad coordination between the parties of the resistance axis and prior planning to seize the regional initiative in the face of any escalation. This made Israel’s position much worse. While Israeli reports spoke of a divergence of views between Netanyahu and Trump, the Axis of Resistance showed significant cohesion and high readiness to deal with developments.

The announcement of the return of the Israeli navigation ban in the Red Sea—a card that Sana’a did not use in the previous round—reflects a clear (and certainly calculated) Yemeni drive to multiply pressure on the enemies, as the ban this time comes amid an existing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, placing energy and shipping markets in an entirely unprecedented circumstance.

Global fears of disruptions extending to the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait were clear during the previous round. Now, there is an actual ban on Israeli navigation. The British maritime security company “Ambrey” has announced that ships linked to Israel, whether by ownership, management, or port calls, now face high risks when transiting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

It is noteworthy that the Yemeni Armed Forces linked their move to the goal of “breaking the siege on Yemen and the Axis of Resistance,” meaning the ban could continue even if a major military explosion doesn’t occur again.