The countdown has begun. And the increasingly pressing rhythm is punctuated by the alarm sirens that sound from Gaza to Lebanon, passing through Jerusalem. Because while the world watches with bated breath the evolution of the clash between Israel and Hamas in the Strip, another fuse is getting dangerously short: the one that leads straight towards the third war in Lebanon, with Hezbollah ready to take the field against the Jewish state.
A nightmare scenario, which risks causing an unprecedented humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe. And which according to many analysts has the traits of "tragic inevitability": a predictable epilogue to an apparently dead-end crisis, dictated by the convergence of interests and calculations of three key players. Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza determined to continue the fight to the bitter end. Hassan Nasrallah, the general secretary of Hezbollah who will never accept a truce with Israel. AND Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister caught between pressure from hawks and the risk of an internal political crisis. Three leaders different in history and ideology, but united by a basic fact: the belief that they have more to gain (or less to lose) from war than from peace. A deadly chess game, which the feeble and partly insincere diplomatic efforts of the international community do not seem capable of stopping. To understand why, let's try to analyze the moves and countermoves of the protagonists, in an escalation that appears more unstoppable every day.
Sinwar and the all-out war
Let's start from Gaza, the epicenter of the current crisis and a fundamental pawn of any possible evolution. A brutal conflict, the result of a brutal attack in an equally brutal ten-year context: a tangle that has been tangled for 8 months now and shows no signs of unraveling. A permanent ceasefire seems like a mirage. And the reason, according to analysts, has a name and surname: Yahya Sinwar.
The leader of Hamas in the Strip, although declaring himself willing to dialogue, is in fact pursuing an all-out war strategy. The target? Wearing down Israel in a long-lasting asymmetric conflict, in the belief that in the end it will be the Jewish state that will give in first.
Sinwar knows that Hamas can afford a war of attrition, while Israel cannot. For a group like Hamas, fighting an endless insurgency is sustainable. For Israel, the human and economic costs of eternal conflict are unbearable.
It is no coincidence, therefore, that Sinwar rejected the truce proposal put forward by Biden, which envisaged a gradual ceasefire in exchange for the release of the hostages and the reconstruction of Gaza. A proposal not far from those put forward by Hamas in the past, but which the group now rejects. A sign that the strategy has changed, and that it aims to drag the conflict to its extreme consequences.
Nasrallah, Hezbollah and the refusal of any compromise
The second actor watching the ongoing escalation with interest, ready to add fuel to the fire, is Hezbollah. The "Party of God", which de facto controls southern Lebanon, is in fact Hamas' main ally in the region. And its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, looks forward to opening a second front against Israel.
This is demonstrated by the fact that, while fighting is taking place in Gaza, Hezbollah has started firing rockets across the border, forcing several Israelis to evacuate their homes. A provocation that risks triggering a chain reaction, dragging the region into a new war.
Why is Nasrallah so determined to raise the stakes? According to experts, the Lebanese leader is convinced that he can replicate the "Gaza model" also in the north. That is, wear Israel down in an asymmetric conflict, taking advantage of its arsenal of missiles and its well-trained militias.
Nasrallah understood that Israel would struggle to win against an insurgency. In Gaza, despite its military superiority, it fails to defeat Hamas. This gives Hezbollah confidence.
Not only that: Nasrallah knows he has his back covered by Iran, his main sponsor and Israel's sworn enemy. For Tehran, in fact, Hezbollah represents a fundamental pawn in the context of a "proxy war" to keep the Jewish state in check. And a conflict in Lebanon would serve to divert attention from the issue of uranium enrichment.
This is why the Hezbollah leader will never accept a truce agreement that provides for a withdrawal of his forces from the Israeli border. It would be an unacceptable capitulation, an admission of defeat that would undermine his prestige and weaken the axis with Iran.
Netanyahu and the risk of political implosion
And Israel? What is the position of Benjamin Netanyahu's government in the face of the ongoing escalation? Ambiguity reigns supreme. Apart from a few superficial declarations to cajole the internal front, the Jewish country is acting as a rubber band between negotiations and attacks: the situation is complex.
Netanyahu, in fact, is caught in a political vice that risks paralyzing him. On the one hand, he has to deal with pressure from the more extremist parties in his coalition, which are calling for forceful action against Hamas and Hezbollah. On the other hand, he risks being accused of weakness by the centre-left opposition, ready to pull the rug out from under him in case of missteps.
A situation that worsened after the withdrawal of his main moderate ally, Benny Gantz, by the governing coalition. An event that increased the probability of early elections, calling into question the stability of the executive.
Netanyahu's back is against the wall. If he gives in to pressure from the hawks, he risks dragging the country into a devastating war. If he seeks mediation, he will be accused of betraying national security.
In this context, paradoxically, a military escalation could appear to the prime minister as the only way out. A war against Hezbollah, in fact, could regroup Israeli public opinion around the government, easing internal pressure. A cynical calculation, but not unprecedented in the history of the Middle Eastern conflict. And not detached from Netanyahu's psychology, which this year played" with the lives of far too many people, at home and abroad.
An announced tragedy?
In summary, the mixture of interests and calculations that move Sinwar, Nasrallah and Netanyahu seems to be pushing inexorably towards a new, devastating conflict. A "tragic inevitability", as some analysts define it, which risks causing death and destruction on an even greater scale than the ongoing war in Gaza. Of course, international diplomacy is working to avoid this scenario: a truce in Gaza could also partially cool the Lebanese front but so far the results have been disappointing.
Because ultimately, as mentioned, none of the protagonists seem to have a real interest in stopping the escalation. Indeed, each of them thinks they can gain something from the worsening of the crisis. A perverse logic, which puts the lives of millions of innocent civilians at risk. Let us hope that in the end common sense will prevail, and that reason will triumph over the madness of war. But time is running out, and the chances of avoiding the worst seem to be getting slimmer every day. The Middle East is on the brink of collapse. What is at stake is not just the future of the Middle East. It is the future of all of us, of a humanity that cannot afford another devastating conflict. Because after all, as an ancient proverb says, "in war there are no winners, only losers". And this time, it could be all of us who lose.
