The strategic consensus that once governed the border between Israel and Lebanon is disintegrating. For decades, the unofficial rules of engagement rested on a fragile separation between the Lebanese state and the militant group Hezbollah. Now, Eli Cohen, Israel’s Energy Minister and a former intelligence minister, is leading a vocal faction within the security cabinet demanding that this distinction be erased. His argument is blunt. He believes that by treating Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure—its power plants, ports, and airports—as legitimate military targets, Israel can force the Lebanese government to restrain Hezbollah or face national collapse.
This is not a minor shift in rhetoric. It represents a fundamental pivot in regional warfare. If the Israeli military acts on this doctrine, the result would be a total war that ignores the "collateral damage" limitations of previous conflicts. The goal is to make the cost of Hezbollah’s presence so high that the Lebanese population, regardless of their sectarian loyalty, views the militia as a terminal threat to their own survival.
The Death of the Proxy Distinction
The core of the current debate lies in how a nation-state handles a non-state actor that has effectively hijacked a country. Hezbollah is not just a militia; it is a political party with seats in parliament and a social welfare network. For years, Israeli defense officials took a surgical approach. They targeted weapons caches and launch sites while sparing the national power grid. The idea was to keep Lebanon functional enough that the central government might one day exert control.
Cohen and his allies argue this was a fantasy. They contend that the Lebanese state has become a hollow shell, serving as a shield for Hezbollah operations. By sparing the state’s assets, Israel inadvertently allows the group to operate from a protected base. The new strategy treats Lebanon as a unified entity. If Hezbollah fires a rocket, the responsibility falls on the Lebanese flag.
This perspective ignores the reality that the Lebanese Armed Forces are significantly weaker than Hezbollah. Asking the state to "rein in" the group is like asking a hostage to disarm the kidnapper. Yet, from a cold military standpoint, the Israeli right wing sees this as the only way to break the cycle of attrition that has displaced tens of thousands of citizens in Northern Israel.
Infrastructure as a Psychological Lever
Modern warfare often focuses on "center of gravity" targets. In Lebanon, the center of gravity isn't just a hidden tunnel in the south; it is the fragile stability of Beirut. The country is already reeling from a multi-year economic meltdown. The Lebanese pound has lost more than 90% of its value since 2019. Rolling blackouts are the norm, and the healthcare system is on life support.
Striking the remaining energy hubs would do more than just cut the lights. It would stop water pumps, kill refrigeration for food and medicine, and shutter what remains of the manufacturing sector. The strategic calculation here is purely psychological. Cohen’s camp believes that if the Lebanese people are forced back into a pre-industrial age, they will turn their fury toward the group that invited the destruction.
History, however, suggests this is a dangerous gamble. External pressure often triggers a "rally 'round the flag" effect. When an outside power destroys a nation’s vital services, the population frequently directs its anger at the attacker, not the local provocateur. If Israel destroys the Zahrani power plant, the average Lebanese citizen may not blame Hezbollah’s rockets; they will blame the Israeli jet that dropped the bomb.
The Threat to the Israeli Home Front
One cannot discuss the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure without acknowledging the reciprocal threat. Hezbollah possesses an arsenal of roughly 150,000 missiles and rockets. Unlike the makeshift projectiles often seen in Gaza, these include precision-guided munitions capable of hitting specific coordinates.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has been explicit. If Israel hits Lebanon’s power plants, Hezbollah will hit Israel’s. The Israeli power grid is highly centralized. A few well-placed strikes on the Haifa refinery or the natural gas rigs in the Mediterranean could plunge large swaths of Israel into darkness.
Cohen’s public stance is partly aimed at domestic politics. He needs to show a restless Israeli public that the government is prepared to take decisive action. But the military establishment remains wary. They understand that once the "infrastructure war" begins, there is no easy way to de-escalate. It becomes a race to see which society can endure the most misery before its systems fail.
International Law and the Gray Zone
Targeting civilian infrastructure is a legal minefield. Under the Geneva Conventions, attacks must be limited to military objectives. To justify striking a power plant, a military must prove the facility provides an "effective contribution to military action" and that its destruction offers a "definite military advantage."
The argument used by proponents of the "total state" theory is that Hezbollah uses the national grid to power its communication hubs and drone manufacturing sites. By this logic, the entire grid becomes a dual-use facility. This is a stretch that many of Israel’s closest allies, including the United States, find difficult to support.
Washington has repeatedly cautioned against an escalation that targets the Lebanese state directly. The U.S. has invested heavily in the Lebanese Armed Forces as a counterweight to Hezbollah. Seeing that investment—and the country’s basic survival—vaporized by Israeli airstrikes would create a diplomatic rift at a moment when Israel is already facing intense scrutiny over its operations in Gaza.
The Logistics of a Total Siege
If the cabinet moves forward with Cohen's recommendations, the air campaign would likely target four specific sectors:
- The Energy Corridor: Heavy strikes on the Zahrani and Deir Ammar power stations to induce a national blackout.
- Maritime Access: A blockade or destruction of the Port of Beirut to prevent the shipment of fuel and dual-use goods.
- Aviation: Disabling the runways at Rafic Hariri International Airport to prevent Iranian resupply flights.
- Bridge Networks: Severing the Litani and Awali river crossings to isolate Southern Lebanon from the capital.
This isn't a plan for a quick victory. It is a plan for a siege. A siege conducted from the air is designed to starve the enemy of resources, but in the process, it starves everyone else. The "how" of this strategy is simple: overwhelming air superiority. The "why" is more complex: a belief that the status quo of "contained conflict" is no longer sustainable.
The Irony of the Buffer Zone
There is a grim irony in the push to destroy Lebanon’s infrastructure. If Israel succeeds in making Southern Lebanon or the entire country uninhabitable, it creates a vacuum. Vacuums in the Middle East are rarely filled by moderate forces. They are filled by chaos, which Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies are remarkably adept at navigating.
A collapsed Lebanon doesn't necessarily mean a defeated Hezbollah. The group has spent years building a self-sustaining underground economy. They have their own generators, their own fuel supplies, and their own smuggling routes. Targeted strikes on civilian power might actually increase the population's dependence on Hezbollah’s private black-market services, strengthening the group's grip on the people rather than weakening it.
The Shifting Red Lines
We are watching the red lines move in real-time. What was unthinkable five years ago—the deliberate, premeditated destruction of a neighboring state's civilian heart—is now being debated in the highest halls of power in Jerusalem. This shift suggests that the Israeli leadership has lost faith in traditional deterrence. They no longer believe that Hezbollah can be talked into a withdrawal or scared into silence.
The move toward targeting the state itself signals a belief that the "Lebanon" we knew is already gone. In its place is a battlefield where the distinction between a soldier and a citizen is being systematically erased by the harsh requirements of a multi-front survival war.
The decision to execute this strategy will not be made in a vacuum. It will be dictated by the next major rocket volley from the north. When that happens, the order to hit the grid will likely be the first one signed. The consequences will be permanent. You cannot un-bomb a power plant, and you cannot easily rebuild a nation once you have decided its very existence is a threat.
The move to target the Lebanese state is a final admission that diplomacy has failed. If the lights go out in Beirut, they likely won't come back on for a generation.
