Israeli forces on Thursday destroyed more than two kilometers of underground infrastructure beneath the strategic ridge in southern Lebanon after establishing what the military called operational control above and below ground.
The Israeli military said the network contained rockets, missiles, drones, anti-tank weapons, mines and explosives, as well as a command complex used by Hezbollah’s Badr unit.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz said the operation completed the consolidation of an Israeli security zone and that troops would remain in the area to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its capabilities.
The demolition followed weeks of conflicting claims over control of Ali al-Taher and came after Tehran had warned Washington that a major Israeli assault on the position would provoke a forceful Iranian response.
Yet the operation went ahead, dealing another blow to an Iranian-backed front that Tehran had explicitly sought to protect under the Islamabad memorandum with the United States.
How far do ‘all fronts’ extend?
Lebanon was written into the first clause of the memorandum between Tehran and Washington, with the parties committing to the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” and to ensuring Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The wording was disputed from the outset. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose government mediated the agreement, said the cessation of hostilities applied to “all fronts, including Lebanon,” while Netanyahu rejected Tehran’s interpretation.
Iranian parliament speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf repeatedly portrayed Lebanon’s inclusion as a diplomatic achievement.
“We brought the resistance front and Lebanon into the first clause of the memorandum,” he said, later accusing the other side of violating the provision.
But Tehran’s ability to enforce that interpretation has increasingly been called into question.
Mojtaba Amani, Iran’s former ambassador to Beirut, had argued that an earlier Iranian military response established a deterrence equation that prevented Israel from attacking Beirut and the Dahiyeh.
In southern Lebanon, however, that equation has proved far less effective. Israel has continued strikes, expanded its presence and tied withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament while gradually establishing what it describes as a security zone.
Ali al-Taher has now become one of the clearest tests of that gap between Tehran’s declared red lines and its ability or willingness to enforce them.
Israel destroys the Ali al-Taher network
Ali al-Taher is a strategic elevation near Nabatieh, around 15 kilometers from the Israeli border, overlooking routes connecting southern Lebanon with the mountainous Iqlim al-Tuffah area farther north.
Lebanese security sources had said Hezbollah built a large underground network inside the ridge, including weapons stores and command infrastructure. Israel described it as a major hub for Hezbollah’s Badr unit.
For weeks, control of the position remained disputed.
Hezbollah lawmaker Ihab Hamadeh questioned Israeli claims to control the ridge while Israeli forces continued bombarding it. Media aligned with Tehran also gave conflicting accounts, while one Iranian reporter acknowledged that the area had effectively been lost.
That ambiguity has now largely disappeared.
Israel said Thursday that its forces had established operational control both on the surface and underground before destroying the tunnel system. The network extended for more than two kilometers and included command centers, weapons depots and living quarters that allowed fighters to remain underground for extended periods, according to the Israeli military.
The massive demolition was powerful enough for the US Geological Survey to register a magnitude-4.1 seismic event in the area.
Atlantic Council researcher Nicholas Blanford had previously argued that Israel was more likely to destroy the infrastructure at Ali al-Taher than attempt to permanently occupy every surrounding height. The first part of that assessment has now materialized, although Israel says its forces will remain in the area rather than withdraw after the demolition.
Control of the ridge also gives Israel greater military reach toward Nabatieh and the mountainous belt farther north, where Lebanese military sources have said Hezbollah moved some weapons and air-defense systems as pressure increased around Ali al-Taher.
The battle therefore extends beyond one position. Israel is attempting to break the connection between Hezbollah’s southern front and its operational rear, prevent the group from rebuilding and deepen a security belt inside Lebanon.
A red line crossed
The importance of Thursday’s operation lies not only in what Israel destroyed, but in what happened to Iran’s warning.
Reuters reported last week that Tehran had warned Washington through Oman that it would mount a major response if Israel launched a full-scale offensive against Ali al-Taher.
Two regional officials told Reuters at the time that more than 12 members of the Revolutionary Guards were present in the area. The White House said that account was inaccurate, while Israeli assessments reported by local media said no IRGC forces were there.
Israel nevertheless proceeded to take operational control of the ridge and destroy the underground complex.
Before the demolition, Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, had already implicitly acknowledged territorial setbacks in Lebanon, saying on state television that Israel had “managed to take some places.”
In the same interview, however, Rezaei announced plans for a new restricted zone outside the Strait of Hormuz.
That contrast points to a broader shift in where Tehran sees effective leverage.
Rather than escalating directly over every Israeli advance in Lebanon, Iran has increasingly concentrated pressure around the Persian Gulf, where its ability to disrupt energy flows imposes costs not only on Israel and the United States but on the global economy.
Recent exchanges have demonstrated both the power and the vulnerability of that strategy.
Iran has disrupted shipping through Hormuz, while the United States has imposed a maritime blockade and attacked Iranian oil tankers. Tehran has in turn attacked vessels in and around the strait and threatened stronger retaliation against further strikes on its assets.
Oil prices have climbed above $100 a barrel amid uncertainty over shipping through the Persian Gulf and escalating attacks on tankers.
Unlike the Lebanese front, Hormuz gives Tehran a lever that does not depend on Hezbollah retaining territory or military infrastructure.
But it is no longer Iran’s only significant maritime pressure point.
Pressure at both ends of the region
The latest developments in Yemen have strengthened rather than weakened Iran-aligned forces around another of the world’s most important waterways.
The Houthis on Thursday seized the Red Sea port of Mocha in an offensive that has increased their leverage around the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.
Reuters reported, citing Yemeni, Iranian and regional sources, that Iranian weapons and military advice played a critical role in the offensive and that Revolutionary Guard personnel helped guide the operation. Tehran denies directly directing Houthi military operations.
The Houthis have also seized strategic Red Sea islands, including Perim, Zuqar and Hanish, further strengthening their position around Bab al-Mandeb, according to the Financial Times.
Those gains complicate the picture of an Islamic Republic simply losing its regional capabilities.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah has lost important positions and infrastructure and Israel has shown an ability to cross a red line Tehran had explicitly drawn around Ali al-Taher.
In Yemen, by contrast, an Iran-aligned force is expanding its geographic position around a strategic shipping route.
The result is an increasingly maritime geography of pressure.
The Strait of Hormuz remains Tehran’s most direct instrument, allowing Iran itself to threaten one of the main arteries of global energy trade. Around Bab al-Mandeb, the Houthis now possess greater capacity to disrupt another route linking the Indian Ocean, Red Sea and Suez Canal.
Together, instability at the two chokepoints has placed additional strain on global energy supplies and shipping.
Tehran nevertheless remains under heavy pressure. Its economy has been battered by sanctions and the US maritime blockade, its oil exports have been severely constrained, and Hezbollah’s battlefield position in Lebanon has weakened.
But the Houthi advances show that Iran’s regional leverage is becoming more uneven rather than simply disappearing.
Ali al-Taher illustrates where Tehran’s deterrence has receded. Hormuz and, indirectly, Bab al-Mandeb show where it still has tools capable of imposing wider costs.
As Israel pushes further past Iranian red lines in Lebanon, those maritime levers are therefore becoming increasingly important to Tehran’s effort to retain the initiative without opening another direct front with Israel.
