Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, the former head of the National Security Council and currently a senior member of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS), spoke about Israel’s current conflict with Hezbollah on Kol BaRama Radio on Tuesday.

“We’re not in an all-out war,” he said. “We’re not wiping out Dahieh [Beirut suburb and Hezbollah stronghold], and they’re not firing at Tel Aviv. All the targets we’ve taken out are less than 10% of Hezbollah’s capabilities.”

” For 20 years, we preferred to invest in Lebanon instead of Gaza, and the results can be seen in the past few weeks,” Amidror added in a veiled criticism of the IDF’s failure to predict and defend against the October 7 assault.

In an interview with Globes on Monday, Amidror said that Israel is now ready for a full-out war with Hezbollah but Hezbollah is not, explaining that if the terror group wanted war it would have dramatically expanded its fire. Since it hasn’t done so despite Israel’s “exploding devices” operation, the IDF’s targeted eliminations in Beirut and numerous strikes throughout Lebanon, it’s evident that Hezbollah is not currently interested in a war.

Amidror believes there’s one question hanging over Israel right now: “Iran is waiting around the corner and seemingly needs to get involved. This is a serious event, and the question is whether it fits into the Iranian interest picture. I don’t know, and I don’t have an answer to how long they will wait before significantly escalating the situation. I think they understand the shift in the strategic situation.”

“Something big has changed in the Middle East,” Amidor continued. “Have you asked yourself the most natural question – how will Hamas respond to these assassinations? After all, Sinwar’s dream is for Hezbollah to go crazy and fire at Israel from the north but where’s the support from Hamas for that? Not even a single barrage. Why? Because you need to understand – Israel doesn’t have two fronts at its borders right now; it has a front and an eighth. That’s a huge difference.”

Amidror criticized Israel’s lack of preparation for an all-out war, saying: “To deal with security threats, we needed very extensive activity in the area of evacuation and construction over the years, or at least to ensure the construction of secure rooms, where the risk of being hit by rocket fire is ten times less. Israel failed to implement even this at the right pace. There are plenty of similar issues that need to be examined.”

“Do you think the residents of Haifa and the surrounding areas should be prepared for evacuation?” the Globes reporter asked.

“I don’t know. And not because I’m not in the position right now but because I’m sure neither side knows what will happen. It depends on developments. I think Israel, more than Hezbollah, is ready to take the risk of reaching that threshold of total war, but even it prefers that it doesn’t come to that. How long will this last? In my opinion, both sides have no idea.”

Amidror added that the goal of the IDF’s strikes in Lebanon is to pressure Hezbollah into an agreement or to push it away from the border. “We’re going back to something that looks like – but isn’t – the security zone we had before the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, namely denying Hezbollah the ability to do something like October 7.” He added that Israel is also trying to achieve “a situation where it can act without fear against Hezbollah’s renewed buildup afterward.”

Globes: “After the pager attack, there were many calls to enter Lebanon extensively and take advantage of the blow Hezbollah received. What’s your opinion on this?

“No military professional would advocate for something like that because military people know you don’t just jump into action because an ‘opportunity has arisen,'” Amidror responded. “Such a move needs to be prepared thoroughly. Moreover, look at the recent American statement. They essentially say they’re behind you as long as you diminish Hezbollah’s capabilities. They didn’t even condemn the attack in Beirut because we took out someone they had put a bounty on themselves (Ibrahim Akil, etc.). However, on the other hand, they say, ‘Don’t cause an all-out war.’ We need to play wisely in this situation. Because ultimately, we do need U.S. support in the international arena for arms and more. We can fight without the U.S., but it would be much easier with them.”

Since the war broke out, there’s been much more discussion in Israel about the “Axis of Evil,” which is led by Iran and has one goal: the destruction of the State of Israel. Questions often arise about when and if the current campaign will escalate to a direct conflict between Israel and Iran. Amidror notes that before opening up the campaign against Iran, if at all, its proxies need to be neutralized.

“There’s value in itself in weakening the capabilities of the various elements in the fire ring that the Iranians created around Israel,” he said. “Within this framework, there are different components to consider – Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. As these stories develop, the resources available to Iran will diminish. But in the end, Iran is a huge country with capabilities and a war against it is not the same game. It’s not something you enter lightly, like going to war with Hezbollah.”

Globes: “Earlier this week, it was reported that Israel is examining whether Yahya Sinwar has been eliminated. What are the implications if this turns out to be true? ”

“Hamas today is a front that doesn’t have much capability behind it,” Amidror answered. “Right now, the only asset they have is the Israeli hostages. The other thing is that Sinwar can say, ‘You weren’t able to kill me.’ He doesn’t have the ability to attack Israel –  on the ground or with missiles. He can’t produce weapons and he can’t smuggle weapons. Sinwar is mainly a symbolic figure and if we succeed in killing him, we’ll just further erode the decaying front.”

(YWN Israel Desk – Jerusalem)