Israel Says It Destroyed a Hezbollah Tunnel in Majdal Zoun — But the Battle for Southern Lebanon Is Not Over
Netanyahu says Israel destroyed a 200-meter Hezbollah underground route and informed the U.S. in advance. Hezbollah denies losing key terrain near Ali al-Taher.
Israel has announced the destruction of Hezbollah underground infrastructure near Majdal Zoun in southern Lebanon, describing the operation as part of a wider effort to remove threats from the border zone. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli officials say the tunnel route was more than 200 meters long, over 25 meters deep, and contained weapons and launch shafts aimed at Israel.
If confirmed in full, the operation is tactically significant. Hezbollah’s underground infrastructure has long been central to its defensive and offensive doctrine in southern Lebanon. Tunnels, launch positions, concealed movement routes and buried weapons caches allow the group to absorb Israeli firepower, preserve fighters and threaten northern Israel even under intense surveillance.
But the announcement also raises a bigger question: is Israel preparing to leave southern Lebanon under the emerging agreement, or entrenching itself in a new security zone?
The language from Israel points in both directions. On one hand, Netanyahu has presented maps and withdrawal zones suggesting that Lebanese state forces may eventually take over certain areas and be responsible for preventing attacks. On the other hand, Israeli officials insist IDF soldiers will remain in the security zone and continue destroying Hezbollah infrastructure. That sounds less like immediate withdrawal and more like conditional occupation.
Hezbollah denies that Israel controls the strategic Ali al-Taher heights in the Nabatieh direction. The ridge matters because geography matters in southern Lebanon. Heights can dominate roads, villages, observation points and potential launch areas. If Israel controls them, it gains tactical depth. If Hezbollah still holds or contests them, the security-zone map remains unstable.
The United States was reportedly informed in advance of the Majdal Zoun tunnel operation. That is important because Washington is trying to mediate multiple connected files: the U.S.-Iran memorandum, the Lebanon front, Hormuz shipping, and Israel’s security demands. If the U.S. was informed but did not stop the operation, Tehran and Hezbollah may argue that Washington is tolerating Israeli violations while demanding Iranian restraint.
Israel’s counterargument is straightforward: no peace arrangement can survive if Hezbollah keeps tunnels, launch shafts and weapons infrastructure near the border. From that perspective, destroying underground routes is not sabotage of the agreement but implementation of its security logic. Israel will say it cannot withdraw into vulnerability.
Lebanon’s problem is that state sovereignty is being discussed by everyone except the Lebanese state on equal terms. The Lebanese army is expected to take responsibility for areas where it may lack full capacity, political consensus or freedom of action. Hezbollah is expected to accept limits on its military infrastructure while presenting itself as the defender of Lebanese territory. Israel is expected to withdraw while reserving the right to strike. The U.S. is expected to guarantee a process it does not fully control.
The tunnel story is therefore not only about a tunnel. It is about whether the Lebanon file can be separated from the Iran file. If Israel continues operations while Tehran is negotiating Hormuz and sanctions, Iran may use Lebanon as proof that the U.S. cannot enforce Israeli restraint. If Hezbollah responds, Israel will say the security zone is necessary.