Israel intensifies strikes on Hezbollah’s missile sites, preparing for potential conflict with Iran and reducing the group’s threat capacity.
Israel’s latest strikes in Lebanon are not just another round in the slow-burning shadow war with Hezbollah. They are part of something larger: an effort to ensure that if the US – or Israel – strikes Iran, Tehran’s most powerful proxy will not be able to carry out the mission it was built for.
For decades, Hezbollah has served as Iran’s forward deterrent against Israel, with an arsenal amassed on Israel’s northern border designed to unleash massive rocket and missile fire in the event Iran’s nuclear facilities or regime come under attack. That strategic logic has not changed. What has changed is Israel’s determination to degrade that capability before a wider confrontation begins.
On Friday, Israel carried out strikes deep in the Bekaa Valley, which – according to Lebanese officials – killed at least 10 people and eliminated several Hezbollah missile-unit commanders.
This fits into a pattern that has intensified over the past month: sustained IDF action targeting long-range missile sites, command centers, and Hezbollah’s efforts to rebuild military infrastructure. These strikes, Israeli officials acknowledge, are meant to disrupt the group’s readiness and force build-up, including missile units planning future attacks on Israel.
The timing is telling. A similar surge in Israeli activity took place late last May, just weeks before the June 2025 war with Iran. Then, as now, Israel appeared intent on degrading Hezbollah’s capabilities before events elsewhere triggered escalation.
Hezbollah did not launch a missile barrage during the 12-Day War
What makes that comparison particularly relevant now is what happened next – or rather, what did not happen.
Despite longstanding Israeli assumptions that any attack on Iran would automatically trigger massive rocket fire from Lebanon, Hezbollah did not launch a sustained missile barrage during the 12-day war – the feared all-out northern front never materialized.
Why Hezbollah stayed restrained remains debated. One explanation is that the group had little appetite for inviting Israeli attacks that could have further degraded its military infrastructure, already devastated during the Israel-Hamas War.
Another explanation concerns domestic pressure. Lebanon is economically shattered and politically fragile. A decision to unleash massive rocket barrages in the service of Iran – one that would have invited heavy retaliation from Israel – could have triggered sharp backlash from Lebanese political leaders and large segments of the public asking why the country should again be dragged into a war not its own.
Whatever the mix of considerations, the restraint was notable. There is no guarantee, however, that those same calculations will hold this time, especially if the Iranian regime believes it is facing a do-or-die moment.
The Iranians appear not to be taking any chances with Hezbollah this time.
Arab media reports suggest Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel are operating inside Lebanon and advising Hezbollah on operational planning. If Tehran concludes that its core assets are under threat, it may decide that its northern lever must be activated – and reportedly has personnel on the ground to ensure orders to do so are implemented.
The tempo of Israeli strikes
That possibility helps explain the tempo of Israeli strikes.
January alone saw 87 Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon – more than double December’s number and the highest number since the ceasefire went into effect in November 2024 – with roughly half targeting infrastructure north of the Litani River, Hezbollah’s operational heartland, according to the Alma Research and Education Center.
February has also seen intense action, including drone strikes, artillery fire, and targeted eliminations. The campaign appears designed to reduce Hezbollah’s ability to launch large-scale fire if ordered to do so.
Lebanon’s internal political landscape adds another layer of complexity.
President Joseph Aoun has called for international intervention to halt Israeli strikes, warning that Lebanon’s involvement in a wider war would have devastating consequences. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has described the current situation as a “one-sided war of attrition.” Influential Lebanese political figures are reportedly urging neutrality, concerned that Hezbollah could drag the country into a regional war not of its choosing.
That tension strikes at the core of Hezbollah’s domestic narrative. The group portrays itself as the “defender of Lebanon.” But if it launches massive rocket barrages in response to an Iran-related escalation – prompting extensive Israeli retaliation – that image would fracture, and the organization’s legitimacy inside Lebanon would be dented.
Israeli officials have indicated that escalation would not remain confined to tit-for-tat exchanges. In past confrontations, such dynamics have expanded beyond individual launch sites to broader strikes against Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, with the risk that Lebanese infrastructure could be hit as well.
Israel’s overall posture toward Lebanon since October 7 has changed dramatically. As Brig.-Gen. Yuval Gez, commander of the IDF’s 91st Division, told leaders of northern communities last week: “Our responsibility is not only to respond, but to anticipate, initiate and defend.”
He said the IDF was prepared for “various scenarios,” with forces deployed along the entire border and deep into Lebanese territory. The language suggests preparation not only for deterrence, but for rapid escalation.
The central question is whether Hezbollah will once again remain on the sidelines if confrontation erupts between Israel and Iran, or whether Tehran will decide that this is the moment to activate the asset it has invested billions of dollars in building up precisely for this purpose.
Israel’s current strategy is designed to shape that decision before it is made. By degrading missile units, targeting command centers, and keeping up the military pressure, Jerusalem is seeking to ensure that even if Hezbollah chooses to fire, its capacity to damage is reduced.
It is also sending a message to the organization that if it acts on Iran’s orders, the consequences will be devastating.
One thing is clear: Israel is no longer assuming that last year’s restraint will hold. If Tehran pulls the Hezbollah lever this time, Jerusalem is working to ensure that there will be far less force behind it.