Since U.S. President Donald Trump met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on December 29 in Washington, anticipation has prevailed over how developments will unfold on the region’s fronts, including Lebanon. Lebanon was raised through what Netanyahu presented regarding Iran’s military support for Hezbollah, a Lebanese armed group backed by Iran and his request to expand operations against it. However, the U.S. attack on Venezuela reshuffled the deck with the messages it sent to the region and the world, and it may whet Israel’s appetite to hasten a war against the party, despite the U.S. granting more time to assess what Lebanon has achieved with regard to withdrawing weapons and completing the process south of the Litani River in southern Lebanon that is subject to special security arrangements.

The U.S. operation in Venezuela, while pointing to Washington’s approach to dealing with “resistance” states, falls within its strategy of political and economic dominance. Conditions differ, however, in the Middle East, which stands on the brink of a volcano from Lebanon to Iran. Israel may move to carry out similar operations in Iran while striking Hezbollah to neutralize it.

According to diplomatic sources, the party has received multiple messages from Arab and international sides advising it to engage positively with the government’s plan, surrender its weapons, agree to negotiate with Israel, and enter into an internal Lebanese political settlement that would spare Lebanon a war and help save it amid regional shifts. However, the party responds, according to the sources, that it is capable of confrontation as long as war is inevitable and a matter of timing, and that it is preparing for multiple scenarios in alignment with its Iranian reference.

So far, despite developments in Venezuela, Washington continues to follow the Lebanese file and shows understanding of some of its complexities. This prompted it to grant Lebanon a deadline to complete the plan to confine weapons to the state, followed by remarks by U.S. Ambassador Michel Issa about “containment” and settlement without this meaning that it would prevent any potential Israeli war at a later stage.

Amid talk of Washington scrutinizing Lebanon’s official position and its fears of internal civil strife, attention is focused on the expected army report on the completion of operations south of the Litani River. The Americans are awaiting the army to quickly define its steps north of the river and to begin the second phase before the deadline linked to the conference supporting the Lebanese army, which is committed to the mechanism’s decisions, including the adoption of site-verification procedures and access to private property. However, recent developments may once again upend the picture and accelerate the possibility of expanding military operations against Lebanon and Hezbollah.

The matter is tied to what Washington decides and whether it will continue pressuring Netanyahu to halt the expansion of the war or give him the green light to widen his operations. Fears are rising of an Israeli war that could take the form of heavy strikes and limited incursions. Lebanon’s situation appears linked to shifts in the U.S. plan for the region: if the United States escalates against Iran, Lebanon would be exposed to a pre-emptive or simultaneous Israeli war.

The phase leading up to the expiry of the U.S. deadline carries significant risks, particularly Israeli escalation. Amid pressure exerted by Hezbollah on the state and complicating the army’s mission to implement the terms of the ceasefire agreement, the party provides justifications for Israel under the pretext of rebuilding its strength and capacity for confrontation. According to the sources, talks between the party and the state have reached a dead end, while Israel continues to strike the party’s positions and target its operatives, and the party has not altered its policy to spare the country the fate of war, displacement, and destruction.

Meanwhile, Lebanon awaits regional developments, the establishment of new balances, and fears changes in the negotiation process with Israel in the mechanism, increasing demands for Lebanon to make greater concessions and suffer greater isolation, becoming encircled by security, military, economic, and financial pressures.

Particularly, Lebanon's bets on support from Arab and European countries seem unlikely today with everyone preoccupied with the new scene, and the lack of understandings between the United States and Iran, exacerbating the risks of war and chaos.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar