Israel’s Move in Lebanon to Block Hezbollah from Aiding Iran, Expert Says

The Broader War Against Hezbollah and Iran

As Israel intensifies its ground operation in Lebanon following renewed attacks by Hezbollah, retired British Army Colonel Richard Kemp has emphasized that the conflict is no longer just a border dispute. Instead, he argues it is part of a larger war aimed at dismantling Hezbollah’s ability to threaten Israel, particularly within the broader context of the confrontation with Iran.

Speaking to an unnamed outlet, Kemp highlighted that Hezbollah was designed for precisely this kind of conflict. “Hezbollah, of course, exists for this very moment,” he said, noting that the group’s missile arsenal was always intended for use in a war tied to Israeli or U.S. operations against Iran. According to Kemp, as long as Hezbollah retains any meaningful capabilities, Israel must assume it will use them. “One has to assume that while they have any capability, they will use it,” he warned, stressing that Israeli civilians remain at risk as long as the group can continue launching attacks.

Kemp believes Israel’s objective in Lebanon is twofold: to eliminate the leadership of Hezbollah and other armed groups operating there, and to destroy the military infrastructure that enables their attacks. “The goal is probably twofold. First of all, to eliminate the leadership of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, if necessary,” he said. However, he cautioned that merely removing leadership is not enough. “When you eliminate the leadership, inevitably someone else steps up to take over,” he explained. That, in his view, is why Israel must also focus on targeting missile launchers, stockpiles, and lower-level operatives. “You need to get rid of both the weapons of war and the people who are using them.”

A Regional Conflict with Global Implications

A former British Army officer who commanded forces in Afghanistan and later led the international terrorism team at Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee, Kemp sees the Lebanon front as inseparable from the wider campaign against Iran. He pointed out that Tehran has been attempting to expand the war across the region, including by threatening or attacking Arab states, in hopes of pressuring Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and others to push Washington to halt the offensive.

“I do believe that their objective in that is to apply sufficient pressure on Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE in order to get them, in turn, to pressure the US to call off the operation,” he said.

However, Kemp believes this strategy is backfiring. “I think it’s going to have the reverse effect,” he argued, noting that countries once reluctant to confront Iran are now moving closer to what he called “an ad hoc coalition against Iran led by the United States.” He added that Iran’s retaliation reflects not just strategy but humiliation. Iran, he said, is trying to restore its image of strength through force, driven by what he called “the sense of honor that prevails across the Middle East.” Despite this, he claimed that Iran’s efforts have had limited success. “It’s had relatively limited effect compared to the volume of missiles that they’ve fired,” he said, crediting Israeli, American, British, and Arab interception efforts.

Will Iran Succeed in Dragging More Countries Into the Conflict?

When asked whether strikes involving Azerbaijan and Turkey could pull more regional powers into the conflict, Kemp suggested that Iran may be trying to widen the confrontation, but it is facing its own weakening capabilities. He pointed to what he described as a drop in Iranian missile fire toward Israel, from large salvos to “single shots,” which he said suggests Iran’s offensive capacity is being “badly degraded.”

He also dismissed the idea that attacks affecting Turkey or the British sovereign base area in Cyprus would trigger formal NATO involvement. “That’s not going to happen,” he said, arguing that the alliance’s main fighting power in this theater is already engaged through the United States and that other NATO countries are unlikely to enter the war directly.

Far more critical was Kemp’s assessment of Britain’s response to the attack on its base in Cyprus. He accused London of failing to defend its own territory. “The United Kingdom, which has, shamefully, in my view, stood on the sidelines wringing its hands,” he said. “That’s British Sovereign Territory, let’s not forget. It’s the first time that British Sovereign Territory has been attacked since 1982, the Falklands War.” Britain’s response, he said, has been “absolutely zero so far.”

Assessing Iran’s Military Condition

On Iran’s military condition after nearly a week of U.S.-Israeli strikes, Kemp offered a blunt assessment: “They were hit very, very badly on day one.” He said the opening wave exceeded even the 2003 “shock and awe” campaign against Iraq and that the damage has continued to build. In his account, the campaign has targeted the regime’s leadership, the machinery of internal repression, and the full range of Iran’s offensive capabilities, especially ballistic missiles and drones. Launch sites, storage facilities, and production centers are all under attack, he said.

Beyond that, Kemp argued that Iran’s conventional forces have been devastated. “Don’t forget also that the US has sunk almost the entirety, if not the entirety of the Iranian Navy,” he said, adding that Washington has also destroyed nearly all of the Iranian Air Force. His conclusion: “I think this campaign proceeds really, until Iran’s military capability, offensive capability is reduced to pretty much zero.”