The current Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon risks ending in failure similar to the Israeli withdrawal of 2000, former Israeli official Ofer Shelah warned, describing the idea of maintaining a “security belt” inside Lebanese territory as a “recipe for disaster."

Shelah, the former head of the Israeli Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, said Israeli soldiers stationed in Lebanon are operating under “an extremely problematic combat situation” while facing constant danger without achieving meaningful objectives.

“In the end, we will flee from there with our tails between our legs, exactly as we did in 2000,” he said.

The remarks were published as part of a new study by the occupation entity’s "Institute for National Security Studies" and were reported by Maariv.

The comments coincided with Lebanon’s commemoration of Resistance and Liberation Day on May 25, marking the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 after more than two decades of occupation. The anniversary has taken on renewed significance this year amid ongoing confrontations along the Lebanese border and continued Israeli military operations in the South.

'Security belt' strategy under fire

Shelah argued that discussions surrounding the creation or maintenance of a so-called “security belt” in southern Lebanon would only deepen the occupation’s military and political problems.

According to the official, current conditions are “far more problematic” than those surrounding the former Israeli-controlled "security zone" that collapsed before the 2000 withdrawal.

He added that Israeli military activity in Lebanon “achieves no objective” and would ultimately result in further losses among Israeli soldiers.

Shelah also described the Israeli public as increasingly pessimistic, saying settlers “do not know how to act differently.”

His remarks come as Israeli officials continue debating the feasibility of maintaining long-term military positions inside southern Lebanon despite mounting attacks targeting Israeli forces and equipment. Lebanese Resistance groups have argued that the current confrontation reflects a continuation of the same dynamic that ultimately forced the Israeli withdrawal in May 2000.

The former Israeli-controlled “security zone” in southern Lebanon was established following the 1982 invasion and maintained through cooperation with the "South Lebanon Army," an Israeli-backed militia that collapsed alongside the Israeli withdrawal in 2000. During the occupation period, southern Lebanon witnessed repeated Israeli military operations, mass displacement campaigns, detention practices at Khiam prison, and recurring confrontations with Lebanese Resistance factions.

'Time favors the Iranians'

Addressing the confrontation with Iran, Shelah argued that any achievement secured by Washington and Tel Aviv would likely prove temporary.

“There is no such thing as eliminating the Iranian nuclear project without an Iranian decision,” he said, describing this as a “bitter lesson” learned through previous confrontations.

He warned that any future agreement lacking tangible outcomes would represent a failure for both the United States and “Israel", while posing particular risks for the occupation entity itself.

Shelah further argued that the objectives set for the war were “unrealistic” given the means Washington was willing to employ, adding that “time was and still is working in favor of the Iranians.”

His remarks come amid growing divisions inside the Republican Party over reports that the Trump administration may pursue a negotiated settlement with Tehran after months of military escalation. Republican hawks and pro-“Israel” hardliners have opposed any agreement that would allow Iran to retain parts of its nuclear infrastructure or maintain leverage in the region.

At the same time, another faction aligned with Trump’s “America First” base has expressed concern that the military campaign is dragging the United States toward another prolonged Middle East war with mounting economic consequences, particularly following rising fuel prices and disruptions linked to instability around the Strait of Hormuz.

Republican divisions and Trump’s position

Commenting on US President Donald Trump, Shelah said the president’s political standing was weakening amid growing divisions within Republican ranks over the war.

“There were Republicans who intended to vote against his position,” he said.

Shelah added that “very few” people in the United States or within the Republican Party support the war, arguing that political realities have constrained Trump despite his confrontational posture toward Congress.

Debate inside Republican circles has increasingly centered on whether Washington should continue pursuing maximalist objectives against Iran or seek a controlled diplomatic exit before the economic and political costs deepen further ahead of US elections.

Relations with Washington 'heading in a bad direction'

On US-Israeli relations, Shelah said ties between Washington and Tel Aviv have been deteriorating for a long time.

He argued that the prevailing image of “Israel” in the United States is increasingly that of “the tail wagging the dog,” accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of dragging Trump into a costly war.

According to Shelah, ordinary Americans are primarily focused on the domestic economic consequences of the war, particularly rising fuel prices and declining living standards.

Source:Websites