🧵Thread A few hours ago, Israeli warplanes struck a building in the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital, Beirut. According to a statement from the Israeli military, the attack targeted a command and control centre belonging to Hezbollah and came as a response to the militia's continued attacks on northern Israel. Although Lebanese media sources reported that the attack did not kill any Hezbollah commanders, the very fact that it was carried in Beirut's southern suburbs represents a dangerous escalation that could have wider regional repercussions. This analysis examines the details of this attack and its potential ramifications. 1/

With the resignation of General Joseph Aoun from his position as the head of the Lebanese Army, General Rodolphe Hekel took over the role. Hekel had previously served as the head of the Southern Region Command in the Lebanese Army, meaning he was responsible for an area that was practically under Hezbollah’s security and military control, while the Lebanese Army had no significant role other than facilitating the militia’s operations. Here, some may see that Hekel may not be the right person to bring about a security and military change in the Lebanese reality. In practical terms, the army announced that it had managed to assert 85% control over the area south of the Litani river, claiming to have ended Hezbollah’s presence there. But is this claim true? Unfortunately, no. The Lebanese army does not have accurate information about all of Hezbollah's locations and infrastructure in this area. Furthermore, the army has not requested Hezbollah to hand over maps of these locations, and therefore, the army cannot confirm the extent of the militia's control over the area south of the Litani River. Secondly, the destruction of discovered Hezbollah infrastructure is always carried out in coordination with the militia. As for the areas north of the Litani River, the Lebanese army remains unconcerned with Hezbollah's weapons or even with controlling the border with Syria. On many occasions, the Syrian army is forced to deal with smugglers affiliated with Hezbollah itself, while the Lebanese army remains neutral. Of course, the army command justifies this lenient policy toward Hezbollah by claiming that they do not want any military confrontation that could harm Lebanon’s internal peace. However, in practice, this very policy has encouraged Hezbollah to maintain its weapons and allowed it to rebuild its military capabilities. Even when the Lebanese government approved a decision on August 5th to restrict weapons to the Lebanese state, the army reversed this decision on September 5th by developing a plan that only covers the areas south of the Litani river. As for President Joseph Aoun, his stance has always supported this decision of the army leadership. Aoun sees himself as a mediator between two opposing sides: one is represented by the governmental and parliamentary majority, which desires change in Lebanon, the first step being the monopolization of arms by the Lebanese state, and the second is Hezbollah and its ally and political protector, Speaker of Parliament and leader of the Amal Movement and militia, Nabih Berri. Here it is worth noting that the Amal militia participated in the recent escalation and war against the Israeli forces, resulting in dozens of casualties among their members. Anyone familiar with the field situation in southern Lebanon knows that there is ongoing security and military coordination between Hezbollah and Amal. 6/