Israel says its military has established operational control over the strategically important Ali al-Taher ridge in southern Lebanon, marking a significant development in its ongoing confrontation with Hezbollah and its efforts to maintain a security zone inside Lebanese territory.
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz announced the claimed advance on Friday, saying Israeli forces had pushed Hezbollah fighters out of a network of tunnels beneath the highland. The ridge, which rises about 600 metres above sea level and lies approximately 15km from the Israeli border, overlooks strategically important areas of southern Lebanon and northern Israel.
Katz presented the operation as part of a broader Israeli objective to prevent Hezbollah from maintaining military capabilities near the country’s northern communities. He said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government were pursuing a policy under which Israel would not leave the security zone in Lebanon until Hezbollah was disarmed throughout Lebanon and threats to residents of the Galilee were removed.
According to Katz, the capture of Ali al-Taher represents an important step towards that objective.
Hezbollah has not formally responded to Israel’s latest claim, leaving uncertainty over the precise extent of Israeli control over the ridge and the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal or absence of Hezbollah fighters from the area.
Strategic importance of Ali al-Taher
The Ali al-Taher ridge occupies elevated terrain in southern Lebanon, making control of the area potentially important for military observation and operations.
Its position approximately 600 metres above sea level gives forces operating there a commanding geographical advantage over surrounding territory. The ridge is also located relatively close to the Israeli border, placing it within the wider area that Israel has identified as critical to the security of communities in northern Israel.
Israel’s claim therefore has significance beyond the capture of another military position. Control of elevated ground can improve surveillance and provide forces with greater ability to monitor movements across surrounding areas.
Israeli officials have linked the operation directly to their stated objective of preventing Hezbollah from operating close to the border.
The latest development follows previous Israeli gains in the area, including the reported capture of nearby Beaufort Castle and sections of higher ground overlooking parts of southern Lebanon and northern Israel.
Fighting continued despite ceasefire
The confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah has persisted at varying levels of intensity since October 2023, with Israel escalating the conflict on two major occasions — first in September 2024 and again in March this year following the beginning of the US-Israeli war on Iran.
The latest Israeli operations around Ali al-Taher have continued despite a ceasefire agreed in June, according to the supplied account.
Israel has also been working to establish what it describes as a security or buffer zone in southern Lebanon following the latest escalation.
Rights groups cited in the report have accused Israel of deliberately destroying civilian infrastructure as part of its operations, with such actions potentially amounting to war crimes. The operations have also been linked to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese.
The Israeli government, however, has framed its military presence around the security of communities in northern Israel and the need to prevent Hezbollah from threatening those areas.
That competing interpretation lies at the centre of the dispute over Israel’s continued military presence in southern Lebanon.
Analysts question the extent of Israeli control
While Katz described the operation as an important achievement, analysts have cautioned that the precise meaning of “operational control” remains unclear.
Nicholas Blanford, a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and an authority on Hezbollah, said the group’s silence following Israel’s announcement raised questions about what had actually happened on the ridge.
Blanford suggested several possibilities, including the prospect that an understanding may have been reached or that Israel could be describing its control of the area in broader terms than the phrase might suggest.
He also noted that the extent of Israel’s military control and the condition of infrastructure beneath the ridge were not publicly known.
The absence of an immediate formal Hezbollah response has consequently left analysts examining whether the development represents a decisive battlefield shift, a temporary tactical withdrawal or something connected to wider political calculations.
Iran’s role adds another layer
The situation has also drawn attention to Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah.
Reuters previously reported that Iran warned the United States last month that it would respond forcefully if Israeli attacks around the ridge continued.
That reported warning had raised the possibility that further Israeli operations in the area could produce a broader confrontation involving Tehran.
However, the supplied account says Iran has not responded publicly to Israel’s latest claim in a manner that would immediately clarify its position.
Blanford suggested that Hezbollah may still be preparing to return to what he called the “resistance business”, but argued that the group no longer appeared to be making all of the key decisions itself.
He said decisions were increasingly coming from Iran, which appeared to be seeking to keep the situation relatively quiet for the time being.
If that assessment is correct, the lack of an immediate Iranian response could complicate Netanyahu’s calculations, particularly as the Israeli prime minister has made confrontation with Iran a major component of his political and security agenda.
Pressure on Beirut
Beyond its military implications, Israel’s control of the ridge could also increase pressure on Lebanon’s government.
Ahron Bregman, an Israeli security analyst and senior teaching fellow at King’s College London, described the claimed Israeli operational control as a tactical and potentially strategic gain.
He said the position could give Israel greater control over southern Lebanon while also serving as a means of putting pressure on the Lebanese government.
According to Bregman’s assessment, Israel could use its continued presence to force Beirut to confront Hezbollah more directly.
The logic is straightforward: if the Lebanese government succeeds in dealing with Hezbollah’s military presence, Israel could have greater grounds to withdraw; if it does not, Israel could argue that its continued presence inside the security zone remains necessary.
That creates a difficult political challenge for authorities in Beirut, particularly given the wider political and security tensions surrounding Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon.
Human cost and allegations of ethnic cleansing
The expansion of Israeli military control has also intensified criticism over the consequences for Lebanese civilians.
Mohanad Hage Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Centre attributed part of Israel’s battlefield success to its technological superiority. He also argued that Israeli forces had operated without sufficient restraint in attacks on Lebanese towns and villages.
Hage Ali described the destruction and displacement resulting from the campaign as “ethnic cleansing”, while arguing that the lack of consequences for Israeli actions had enabled the destruction of communities on a scale that he said would previously have been difficult to imagine.
Those are his characterisations of the Israeli campaign and should not be treated as an independently established legal finding.
The supplied report notes that rights groups have raised potential war-crimes concerns over the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The allegations underscore the wider controversy surrounding Israel’s military presence and operations in southern Lebanon.
For residents displaced by the fighting, the dispute over strategic terrain has therefore been accompanied by the loss of homes and civilian infrastructure.
Domestic politics in Israel
The developments in southern Lebanon also have a domestic political dimension.
Israeli analyst Ori Goldberg described the security concerns of residents in northern Israel as an important political issue for Netanyahu ahead of crucial elections later this year.
The continued military campaign can consequently be viewed through two overlapping lenses: Israel’s stated security objective of protecting its northern communities and the political pressure on Netanyahu to demonstrate that his government is delivering security after years of conflict.
Bregman went further, suggesting that the political consequences of developments in southern Lebanon could become particularly important as the elections approach.
He argued that Netanyahu would benefit politically if Iran were to intervene on Hezbollah’s behalf because such an escalation could potentially alter the political timetable.
Netanyahu’s wider confrontation with Iran
The Lebanon operation comes as Netanyahu continues to portray Iran as a major existential threat to Israel.
Israeli Defence Minister Katz has previously used extremely aggressive language in describing the consequences of a further attack against Israel, saying that Israel’s military would be freed from constraints and could target infrastructure, including energy infrastructure.
The supplied account notes that such actions could potentially constitute war crimes.
At the same time, questions remain over how far Israel could realistically escalate given its diplomatic, economic and military dependence on the United States.
That dependence could impose practical limits on Israeli actions even when officials use increasingly uncompromising rhetoric.
What happens next?
The most immediate uncertainty is whether Hezbollah will respond to Israel’s claim of control over Ali al-Taher and, if so, what form that response will take.
The group’s silence has already generated competing interpretations. It could indicate a tactical adjustment, a temporary absence from the ridge, a broader understanding, or simply that Hezbollah has chosen not to immediately acknowledge Israel’s description of events.
Iran’s response will also be closely watched because of the reported warning it issued to the United States over continued Israeli attacks in the area.
For Israel, maintaining control of the ridge could strengthen its military position in southern Lebanon and increase pressure on Beirut to address Hezbollah’s presence. For Lebanon, it could deepen the challenge created by an expanding Israeli security zone on its territory.
The development therefore represents more than a single battlefield claim. It is tied to the future of the Israel-Hezbollah confrontation, Iran’s calculations, Lebanon’s internal political balance and Netanyahu’s domestic political fortunes.
For now, however, one central question remains unanswered: whether Israel’s claimed control of Ali al-Taher will become a lasting strategic foothold or another stage in a conflict whose military and political consequences are still unfolding.
Israel Claims Control of Lebanon’s Ali al-Taher Ridge as Hezbollah Response Remains Unclear
