TEHRAN – The recent Israeli strike on Beirut nearly a year after the ceasefire with Hezbollah has raised urgent questions about the effectiveness of international law and the enforcement of UN resolutions in Lebanon. For Adnan Alameh, a Lebanese political analyst, the incident reflects not only Israel’s strategic ambitions but also the broader failure of the international community to restrain violations of sovereignty.

In an interview with the Tehran Times, Alameh says Hezbollah has fully respected UN Security Council Resolution 1701, while Israel, with U.S. backing, has repeatedly breached the ceasefire, targeting both resistance fighters and civilian infrastructure.

He warns that these actions undermine regional stability, embolden further aggression, and expose the limits of global mechanisms meant to prevent “war crimes”.

The following is the text of the interview:

How do you interpret the strategic timing of the Israeli strike on Beirut on November 23, especially given the one-year ceasefire with Hezbollah?

Hezbollah was the only party that adhered to the ceasefire. After the announcement of the cessation of hostilities under UN Security Council Resolution 1701—which requires both sides to stop offensive operations and obliges Israel to withdraw behind the Blue Line—Hezbollah fully respected the agreement. Israel, however, did not.

The United States gave Israel the green light to violate all of Lebanon. Since 27 November 2024, Netanyahu and Avichay Adraee (head of the Arab media branch of the Israeli military) have repeatedly stated after each operation: “The Israeli army continues working to remove any threats to Israel, in accordance with the understandings with Lebanon,” emphasizing the army’s commitment to maintaining these alleged understandings.

In light of (U.S. envoy) Thomas Barak’s threats and Israel’s war crimes, the Lebanese government must immediately deny or confirm these claims. Unfortunately, the state has neither disproven nor proven them.

Once the ceasefire declaration was signed, Hezbollah fighters and the wounded became protected persons under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and the mandates of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Israel considers the elimination of any perceived threat a legitimate right—and no one has restrained it. Even the UN Security Council responded to Lebanon’s complaint about the targeting of civilian equipment sales, repair, and rental centers, as well as road-paving operations, with a meaningless press statement, “without taste, color, or smell.”

With no deterrent in place, the Israeli enemy targeted the martyr Haytham Ali Tabatabai as soon as information on his location became available.
This targeting constitutes a clear “war crime and a crime against humanity,” as it took place in residential areas.

There has been no serious move from the Lebanese government to deter Israel or to bring the matter before the International Criminal Court.

Israel claims that the objective was to assassinate Haytham Ali Tabatabai, Hezbollah’s chief of staff. In your view, what does this specific targeting reveal about Israel’s long-term strategy?

Israel has not adhered to the ceasefire terms from the very first day. It prevented residents from returning to the front-line villages,… , and it has abducted civilians who have attempted to return to their homes at the moment the ceasefire was announced.

On November 10, the Israeli army declared that it had assassinated around 350 Hezbollah members and field commanders since the northern ceasefire went into effect. Israel claims that its war with Hezbollah never actually stopped and that it has the right to kill Hezbollah members without justification.

The enemy boasted about assassinating 350 fighters and commanders since the ceasefire, and this is an official admission of committing “350 war crimes and crimes against humanity”. Unfortunately, there has been no serious follow-up from the Lebanese government to deter Israel or to bring the matter before the International Criminal Court.

As for Israel’s long-term strategic objectives, one of its main goals is to prevent residents from returning to their border villages, because it considers every civilian a potential resistance member.
It also seeks to block any reconstruction efforts. This is why it has carried out numerous airstrikes targeting excavators, bulldozers, and even the smaller “Bobcat” machines.

 It attacked a bulldozer repair center in Ansariyeh, and it struck the largest construction-equipment sales, repair, and rental facility on the main road in Msayleh, destroying more than 300 machines, near the residence of Speaker Nabih Berri.

Lebanon’s PM repeatedly calls for the disarmament of the resistance—even though Israeli occupation persists.

Do you consider this strike an isolated tactical operation, or the beginning of a broader Israeli campaign aimed at reshaping the rules of engagement in Lebanon?

This crime comes within the framework of killing the largest possible number of Hezbollah members, exploiting the UN Security Council’s silence and the Lebanese government’s failure to submit any file to the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice.

This is despite the Council’s dismissive handling of Lebanon’s sole complaint against the Israeli enemy, even though UNIFIL recorded in its reports more than 7,000 violations of Lebanese sovereignty and over 2,400 border violations used to carry out attacks. The number of martyrs has surpassed 400, and the number of wounded has exceeded 600.

I do not believe Israel will embark on any new “adventure,” because it already enjoys the freedom to violate all of Lebanon without any deterrent. 
Israel will continue this policy until it is deterred—one way or another.

How do you assess the assassination?

This assassination is a severe blow to Hezbollah, and the enemy has proudly described it as an achievement resulting from U.S.–Israeli intelligence cooperation. The operation was carried out using the advanced American GBU-39B bomb, which is used only in highly significant missions.

It is also important to highlight that the massive, unprecedented flow of U.S. weapons to Israel since October 8 violates U.S. congressional restrictions, which stipulate that exported weapons must be used strictly for self-defense.

The U.S. and Israel are two faces of the same terrorism.

What scenarios do you foresee for Hezbollah’s response? 

Unfortunately, I do not expect Hezbollah to respond at this time, for several reasons:

• The Lebanese presidency and government have pledged to defend Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, yet despite their inability to fulfill these commitments, the prime minister continues to beg for negotiations with the enemy. He repeatedly calls for the disarmament of the resistance—even though Israeli occupation persists—and frequently declares, on every occasion, that weapons must be exclusively under state control and that the state must impose its authority solely through its own capabilities, without assistance from any actor.

Under such conditions, any move by the resistance would trigger a government backlash. The authorities would incite public opinion against Hezbollah, accusing it of replacing the state. This could ignite a civil war that the resistance has no interest in.

• The balance of power has shifted, particularly with the establishment of a de facto demilitarized zone south of the Litani River and the loss of Syria as a primary ally.
After the 66-day war, the resistance lost its presence along the entire border and the whole area south of the Litani.
Even more dangerous is Syria’s fall under U.S.–Israeli influence, with much of the Syrian Golan villages now effectively controlled by them. This has left the resistance’s eastern flank extremely vulnerable due to the forced absence of its forces from their land and people.

• Hezbollah’s strategic calculations for any deterrent action are extremely precise, covering multiple fronts and taking into account potential field repercussions. A potential ground invasion from both the north and east could form a pincer movement, threatening to displace the remaining population amid current domestic and regional developments.

The situation is highly sensitive, and the cost of strategic patience is far lower than the cost of an all-out confrontation with an enemy that respects no values or international laws.
Accepting the loss of approximately 400 martyrs over the span of a year is far better than losing that number in the span of a month—or even less.

Hezbollah, therefore, is planning with exceptional caution to deter the enemy, always taking into account the safety of its community and fighters when facing an adversary that observes no legal or moral constraints.

How might the international community respond to this breach of the ceasefire? And is there any realistic mechanism capable of restraining Israeli behavior?

We are approaching the first anniversary of the ceasefire declaration under Resolution 1701. Yet, due to U.S. support and the complicity of the international community with Israel, the latter has not complied with the resolution’s provisions—neither halting hostile actions nor withdrawing to internationally recognized borders.

The only effective mechanism to restrain Israel is inflicting heavy losses on the enemy. It is important to recall that in every previous round of aggression, Israel repeatedly sent urgent SOS messages to the United States to arrange a ceasefire.

What happened around this time last year is that, after intense confrontations and systematic destruction, Israel urgently asked the United States to impose a ceasefire in Lebanon. This was a clear acknowledgment that—despite everything—it could not break the resistance.

The United States immediately began its maneuver:

•    It insisted that negotiations take place with the Lebanese authorities,

•    While simultaneously giving Israel, under the table, a green light to violate Lebanon’s sovereignty,

•    And pressuring the Lebanese executive branch not to submit any legal complaint against Israel.

This is how events unfolded.

I recall President Trump’s own words regarding Iran: he claimed that he stopped both the Iranian missile response and Israel’s aggression without coordinating with Iran, saying he intervened personally because, “If I did not stop the war myself, Israel would have been destroyed.”

The resistance, its fighters, and its community are waiting for the promised victory and the defense of the faithful. They trust completely that God exposes the schemes of the schemers, and that His command, when issued, is fulfilled instantly.

To what extent do you find the U.S. denial of prior knowledge of the Israeli strike on Beirut credible? And what does this reveal about current U.S.–Israeli coordination?

The United States manages wars and conflict zones across the world. The narrative that Israel acted within a “golden hour” with too little time to inform Washington is merely an attempt to absolve the U.S. of direct responsibility, ignoring the fact that the U.S. and Israel are two faces of the same terrorism, coordinating roles according to their shared interests.

There is a hotline between them. During the preparations for Netanyahu’s meeting with his military chiefs, there was ample time to communicate with Trump—who gave his blessing for the operation.
Netanyahu, driven by his deep ego, wanted to appear as the sole leader capable of protecting Israel, especially amid growing internal frustration with U.S. interference in Israeli domestic affairs.

On November 11, the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth revealed that the United States is planning to build a massive $500 million military base near the Gaza border “to support the ceasefire” that went into effect on October 10.

Coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv is strategic.

The U.S. has pledged to maintain Israeli military superiority and has supplied Israel with unprecedented quantities of weapons since October 7 under President Biden.
For example:

•    On May 27, 2025, Israel announced the arrival of plane number 800 from the U.S. air bridge and ship number 140 from the sea bridge, claiming the total shipment was 90,000 tons—despite the fact that a single C-5 Galaxy aircraft carries 118 tons.

•    Two days later, Trump declared that he was “on a mission from God” and that “no one can stop what is coming” (referring to the vision of a “Greater Israel”).

•    On November 19, Israel announced the arrival of plane number 1,000 and ship number 150, again underreporting the tonnage despite the average cargo ship carrying 11,000 containers at 20 tons each.

In reality, Israel has received over 33 million tons of U.S. military supplies—sufficient, in their own words, “to destroy the entire Middle East.”
These shipments are intended to advance the project of Greater Israel.