← WW3 RISK TRACKER / THEATER: Gaza War & Israel – Hezbollah Conflict
Israel – Hezbollah, Hamas war
- US envoy Jared Kushner met Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu following Cairo talks with Hamas leaders on a proposed Gaza road map.
- Prime Minister Netanyahu told US mediators Israeli forces will not withdraw from Gaza until Hamas completely disarms.
- A senior US military general met Lebanon's army chief in Beirut to discuss ceasefire monitoring and border stability.
- Hamas expressed willingness to evaluate US security guarantees regarding conditional Israeli withdrawal linked to disarmament.
- Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich publicly called for assassinating Hamas leaders rather than engaging in negotiated settlements.
United States diplomatic efforts to advance a Gaza peace plan stalled after talks between envoy Jared Kushner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yielded no breakthrough. Meanwhile, United States military officials engaged Lebanese Armed Forces leadership in Beirut as fragile conditions persist along the Blue Line.
Israeli forces maintain operational positions inside Gaza following recent targeted strikes in southern Lebanon on August 15 that killed 11 people. In Lebanon, United States military representatives met with Lebanese Army Commander General Joseph Aoun to discuss border monitoring and weapon controls south of the Litani River. Prime Minister Netanyahu reaffirmed that Israeli Defense Forces will maintain ground positions in Gaza until Hamas disarms completely.
Diplomatic talks in Cairo between United States mediator Jared Kushner and Hamas representatives preceded Kushner's meeting with Netanyahu in Jerusalem on August 17. Hamas indicated it would consider United States security guarantees linked to Israeli withdrawal and disarmament timelines. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich publicly rejected negotiations with Hamas, demanding the continuation of targeted operations against senior leadership.
The diplomatic friction occurs alongside implementation challenges of the June 26 Trilateral Framework between Israel, Lebanon, and the United States. Reports indicate a proposed monitoring mechanism would place a United States general in oversight of weapon transfers to an interim administration. Political pressure in Israel continues to influence executive decisions on withdrawal terms and ceasefire conditions.
Persistent disagreements over disarmament sequencing and force deployment prevent the transition from temporary ceasefires to permanent security arrangements in both Gaza and southern Lebanon. Assessment: Hostilities and targeted strikes will likely persist at current levels while political gaps regarding disarmament and troop withdrawal remain unbridged.
- 2026-08-15
Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon killed 11 people, targeting a Hezbollah commander.
On 15 August 2026, Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon killed 11 people and injured 19 following an attack that wounded three Israeli soldiers. Israel reported killing Hezbollah commander Ali Samir Al-Haj Hassan, marking the highest casualties since the June ceasefire.
- 2026-08-13
Israel and Lebanon reportedly reach agreement on monitoring framework for Hezbollah disarmament.
Israeli and Lebanese negotiators reportedly agreed on an oversight mechanism to supervise Hezbollah's disarmament as part of ongoing diplomatic talks. The development occurs amid continued friction over ceasefire implementation and localized military actions.
- 2026-08-12
Israeli drone strike targets Hamas commander in Gaza following week-long operational lull
The Israeli military launched an airstrike in northern Gaza targeting a Hamas operational commander, marking the first such strike in over a week. The action tested fragile security arrangements as international diplomatic talks regarding post-conflict monitoring continue.
4 more
- 2026-08-12
Israeli forces conduct airstrikes in southern Lebanon as Lebanese army expands operations.
The IDF carried out strikes against targets in southern Lebanon while the Lebanese Armed Forces continued operating in designated pilot zones. The strikes occurred as international discussions considered the UK and Italy to monitor Hezbollah disarmament.
- 2026-08-12
Israel conducts targeted Gaza airstrike and reported southern Lebanon strikes testing ceasefires.
Israeli forces carried out an airstrike in Gaza targeting a Hamas commander, marking the first strike in over a week. Concurrently, localized military activity and reported strikes in southern Lebanon continue to test international ceasefire arrangements.
- 2026-08-12
United States announces new round of Lebanon-Israel talks in Rome for September
United States diplomatic officials announced that a new round of high-level trilateral negotiations between Israeli and Lebanese representatives will take place in Rome in September. The talks aim to address unresolved security arrangements and border zone disputes amid ongoing localized violations.
- 2026-08-12
Israel and Lebanon advance Washington diplomatic talks amid sporadic southern Lebanese strikes.
COMMON QUESTIONS
Is Israel at war?
Yes. Israel is formally at war, fighting Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah across the Lebanese border. It is a war between a state and armed movements rather than between two states. In the worldwide legal classification this registers as several strands at once: military occupation of Palestinian territory and armed conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah. The index reads 50/100 as of 1 January 1970 (limited armed conflict); above 50 it grades the fighting itself rather than the risk of it.
How dangerous is the Israel and Hezbollah, Hamas situation right now?
The index reads 50/100 — limited armed conflict. The scale is anchored on 22 historical episodes from 1914 to 2005, so the number means the same thing from one theater to the next. It is a measurement of what is reported, not a forecast.
How is the Israel and Hezbollah, Hamas risk index calculated?
By fixed formula from open-source reporting: events are extracted and graded by how well evidenced they are, scored across weighted factors, and the model never picks the number. How the index works, and what it does not measure, is explained at wwiii.report/methodology.
How often is this updated?
Every day. The report is rebuilt from that day's reporting and the index re-judged from it, and a fall is published only once the evidence confirms it.
Timeline events — hover the chart to read them
Timeline events — hover the chart to read them
Timeline events — hover the chart to read them
One 0–100 scale for the whole conflict. 0–49 is escalation before war; 50–100 is active war and how far it has gone.
50 is not a threshold the number can cross on its own. Which side a theater sits on is decided by whether verified belligerents are fighting there, so war onset always moves the score up across 50 — the number never declares a war by climbing.
It is a stage, not a probability: 42 is not a 42% chance of war. Below 50 it grades movement toward war, above 50 the war itself.
Why it moved, under the chart, names what changed in the latest move: the day’s readings — strikes, casualties, talks — and, when the conflict’s stage was re-judged, what was graded differently and the events behind it. Open it for the detail.
Re-judged from open reporting by fixed formula — the model never picks a number — and a fall publishes only once the evidence confirms it. A dot on the line is a day the stage itself moved. How it is made →
Direction — which way the week pushed. Severity — where the index sits. Connections — how much of the rest a shock here reaches. Cascade — that reach combined with how ready this theater is to go off.
The index reads the state of the conflict, not the volume of news. Each run grades the factors listed below against fixed rubrics, and the score follows by formula.
So a dramatic headline moves nothing unless it changes a grade. A theater already graded for recurring incursions absorbs one more without moving — it is priced in.
Open How this was measured for every grade, its movement since the last run, and the events behind it. Full construction →
A different measurement from the score above, from a different source. This line counts how much of the world's news reports conflict between these two states, against their own long-run normal: 100 is normal, 200 is twice the usual level.
It is computed mechanically from the GDELT Project's open event stream every 15 minutes and never touches the assessed index above — when both move together, that agreement is the signal. A day with too few events shows no reading rather than a guess. Click the chart for the full history.
Data: the GDELT Project.