The Middle East was bracing itself for a wider war on Monday morning, as Israel considered its response to a Hezbollah rocket attack that killed a dozen children who had been playing on a soccer pitch in Majdal Shams.

The air force conducted strikes on Hezbollah targets in the aftermath of the deadly attack, and Israel’s security cabinet authorized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to determine “the manner and timing of the response against the Hezbollah terrorist organization.” The security cabinet met on Sunday evening, after Netanyahu landed in Israel from Washington, taking the unusual step of flying before Shabbat ended following the the worst massacre of civilians in Israel since Oct. 7.

Before the attack on Saturday, a source in Netanyahu’s delegation said that Israel was still looking for a diplomatic solution that would allow tens of thousands of internally displaced Israelis to safely return to their homes near the Lebanon border. At the same time, the official said, Israel “doesn’t need a green light” from Washington to respond to Hezbollah attacks.

Following the attack, Netanyahu said that Israel “will not let this pass in silence.” Visiting Majdal Shams on Sunday, Gallant vowed that Hezbollah “will bear a heavy price for their actions.” 

Meanwhile, the Biden administration signaled its wariness of an IDF attack on Beirut as a step that could spiral into a larger, regional war. White House senior advisor Amos Hochstein spoke with Gallant and senior Lebanese officials since Saturday night to try to prevent a greater escalation. According to Lebanese media, Hochstein told officials in Beirut that Israel’s response will be focused on Hezbollah and then the sides would go back to the regular exchanges of fire since the Iran-backed terrorist group started bombarding northern Israel in solidarity with Hamas after Oct. 7. Gallant is slated to speak with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin later Monday.

At the same time, the U.S. publicly supported Israel’s assessment that Hezbollah was responsible for the attack on the Druze town in the Golan Heights, as Arab media continued to highlight Hezbollah’s denial of the attack and, in some cases, blame a misfired Iron Dome battery. “This attack was conducted by Lebanese Hezbollah,” National Security Council Adrienne Watson said in a statement. “It was their rocket and launched from an area they control. It should be universally condemned.”

Secretary of State Tony Blinken said on a visit to Tokyo that “every indication is that indeed the rocket was from Hezbollah … We stand by Israel’s right to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks.”

Raphael BenLevi, director of the Churchill Program for Strategy, Statesmanship and National Security of Herut Institute, said that Israel has been laying the groundwork for months for a larger war in Lebanon, but was waiting until after Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of Congress last week, to try to garner greater American support.

Hezbollah had been bombarding Israel’s north since Oct. 8, and tens of thousands of Israelis were evacuated as a result, creating a “totally unsustainable” situation, BenLevi noted.

The Iran-backed terror group’s assault on Majdal Shams was “a clarifying moment for [Israel] and the world, that the situation is untenable and we have to do something,” BenLevi said. “The attack adds legitimacy and urgency” to an Israeli response.

Yossi Mansharof, a senior fellow at the Misgav Institute, said that following the attack on Majdal Shams, “in Israeli society, there is an almost total consensus that a war against Hezbollah is an unavoidable necessity.”

“The Israeli public expects a more significant response than it has seen so far,” he said. At the same time, he explained, “Israel, Hezbollah and Iran are not interested in sliding into an all-out war.” 

Mansharof argued that the way to balance the considerations is “a broad attack against Hezbollah’s strategic infrastructure in southern Lebanon and the assassination of senior commanders.”

Similarly, BenLevi said that the “way of threading the needle” is to “attack Hezbollah arsenals and sites from the air,” as well as a ground incursion that would stop far short of Beirut, and likely even short of the Litani river. Israel would be unlikely to try to destroy Hezbollah, in contrast with Hamas in Gaza, in order to avoid a broader conflict with its sponsor Iran, he said.

“We wouldn’t just bomb a few places … We would regain a modicum of deterrence and significantly hurt Hezbollah’s capabilities and create a buffer zone,” which, if wide enough, may allow Israelis to return to their homes near the Lebanon border, he said.

In addition, BenLevi pointed out, the Biden administration has prioritized the avoidance of a war with Iran. Biden may “signal to Iran that if they hold back and let Israel do what it needs to do, limit its response and not unleash all of Hezbollah’s capabilities, then Israel will limit itself. … There’s a chance Hezbollah and Iran will go with that,” he said.

BenLevi called the current situation “very precarious.”

“Hezbollah’s ability to wreak havoc on Israel is well known,” he said. “Even one rocket that hits a strategic target like Ben-Gurion Airport, the Knesset or the Azrieli Towers in Tel Aviv, then that’s it. We’ll have the internal and international legitimacy to conquer Beirut.” 

Mansharof suggested that Israel use psychological and information warfare so that the Lebanese public pressures Hezbollah not to escalate further.

“Israel must … clarify for the Lebanese public the price that all of Lebanon will pay for a war if it continues in its current format. Israel’s pressure must be focused on the Lebanese public, especially Shia society, Hezbollah’s base … Hezbollah is aware of its soft underbelly,” he said. “Psychological warfare is an important tool … to throw Hezbollah off balance.”

One way to convince the Lebanese public that participation in the current war will only hurt them, Mansharof said, is through IDF Spokesperson in Arabic Col. Avichay Adraee, who has a popular X (formerly Twitter) account. 

BenLevi argued that a stronger response from Washington could prevent a regional war.

“Iran has demonstrated that when they see a clear threat from the U.S., it chooses to rein itself in. That has been the case, historically, since 1989. All we need is a threat from the U.S. that if they escalate, they will face American air power,” he said. “The U.S. has dominance vis-a-vis Iran, not the other way around … All it takes is a determined president of the U.S. to call them out.” 

However, he said, “that won’t work if Washington is signaling that the most important thing to them is not to have a war with Iran right now.”