Through its intervention in Syria’s civil war, the Kremlin has acquired a significant foothold in the Middle East. Its regional adventures also include a close alliance with Iran, building a nuclear power plant in Egypt, providing support for one side in the Libyan civil war, and much else. Russell Berman suggests that Moscow may now have its sights on Lebanon, a country sinking into ever-deeper economic and political crisis:

Along the highway that leads from Beirut north to Baalbek, the ancient city of Heliopolis and the site of the spectacular ruins of the temple of Zeus, you reach a point where suddenly a series of billboards lines the road, and the familiar face of Vladimir Putin stares down at you as you drive past. It would be hard to describe his expression as friendly exactly, but the Arabic-language text on the signs conveys a warm greeting from Russia. . . . Three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is actively trying to reacquire its former spheres of influence, returning as a major player in the Levant. This assertion of power on the part of Putin poses a direct challenge to the network of U.S. partners in the region.

Most obvious, the further collapse of Lebanon would unleash a new wave of refugees, presumably traveling into Cyprus or Greece or otherwise into Europe. . . . An influx of refugees from Lebanon will inevitably pose a threat to the political stability of America’s European allies. In order to avoid far-right electoral victories in Europe—far-right and therefore pro-Russian—the challenges in the Middle East and especially Lebanon need attention. The Biden administration’s diplomats should be worrying about this connection.

Those billboards of Putin on the road to Baalbek are clear indications of Russian ambitions and a direct challenge to American influence. Lebanon is a front in the war with Russia: at this point, Lebanon may not be an active theater like Ukraine, but it is an important piece in the puzzle of the Russian strategy to expel the U.S. from the region.

Earlier this month, an operative working for, or in conjunction with, Hizballah snuck across the Israel-Lebanese border and planted a sophisticated explosive near the town of Megiddo, which killed a civilian when detonated. On Thursday, another Iranian proxy group launched a drone at a U.S. military base in Syria, killing a contractor and wounding five American soldiers. The former attack appears to be an attempt to change what Israeli officials and analysts call the “rules of the game”: the mutually understood redlines that keep the Jewish state and Hizballah from going to war. Nadav Pollak explains how he believes Jerusalem should respond:

Israel cannot stop at pointing fingers and issuing harsh statements. The Megiddo attack might have caused much more damage given the additional explosives and other weapons the terrorist was carrying; even the lone device detonated at Megiddo could have easily been used to destroy a larger target such as a bus. Moreover, Hizballah’s apparent effort to test (or shift) Jerusalem’s redlines on a dangerous frontier needs to be answered. If [the terrorist group’s leader Hassan] Nasrallah has misjudged Israel, then it is incumbent on Jerusalem to make this clear.

Unfortunately, the days of keeping the north quiet at any cost have passed, especially if Hizballah no longer believes Israel is willing to respond forcefully. The last time the organization perceived Israel to be weak was in 2006, and its resultant cross-border operations (e.g., kidnapping Israeli soldiers) led to a war that proved to be devastating, mostly to Lebanon. If Hizballah tries to challenge Israel again, Israel should be ready to take strong action such as targeting the group’s commanders and headquarters in Lebanon—even if this runs the risk of intense fire exchanges or war.

Relevant preparations for this option should include increased monitoring of Hizballah officials—overtly and covertly—and perhaps even the transfer of some military units to the north. Hizballah needs to know that Israel is no longer shying away from conflict, since this may be the only way of forcing the group to return to the old, accepted rules of the game and step down from the precipice of a war that it does not appear to want.