A pillar of the "axis of resistance" patiently built by Iran against Israel and sworn enemy of the Hebrew state, the Lebanese Hezbollah has shown restraint by refraining from coming to the aid of its Iranian patron. This distancing continues to raise questions, several days after the ceasefire announced by Donald Trump. Analysis with Sami Nader, director of the Institute of Political Science at Saint Joseph University in Beirut.
"We are not neutral and we will act as we see fit in the face of this barbaric Israeli-American aggression [against Iran, editor's note]," declared the Secretary General of the Shia Hezbollah, Naïm Qassem, on June 19, raising serious concerns in Lebanon about an imminent intervention by the Shia party in the war, which was still ongoing, between the Islamic Republic and Israel.
But the threat from the successor of Hassan Nasrallah, the supreme and revered leader of Hezbollah, killed by the Israeli army on September 27 in the southern suburbs of Beirut, has remained unfulfilled and regional conflagration has been avoided.
Created in 1982 by Tehran to fight against the Israeli army occupying South Lebanon, the Shia Islamist militia has transformed over the decades into a powerful politico-military movement to become one of the main actors of the "axis of resistance" established by Tehran against Israel. According to experts, one of the reasons for the existence of the "party of God", in addition to facilitating Iranian control over the Lebanese state, was to deter the Israelis from attacking Iranian territory and, if necessary, to take action if such an attack were to occur.
Except that not a single rocket, nor even a single anti-tank shell, has been fired by the pro-Iran party towards the Hebrew state throughout the 12 days of the war that opposed its sworn enemy to its financial and military patron.
"We thank God for having succeeded, over the past two weeks, in preventing Lebanon from being drawn into a new war," whispered Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam during a visit to Doha.
A restraint requested by Tehran?
Hezbollah's restraint has provided a certain respite to Lebanon even as the south of the country remains the scene of frequent Israeli bombings, the latest being conducted by the Israelis targeting the heights of the Nabatiyé region on Friday, June 27.
A semi-open front therefore, despite the ceasefire concluded between the "party of God" and Israel, at the end of November, after thirteen months of clashes following the Lebanese movement's entry into action against the Hebrew state in solidarity with the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip and to support Hamas, which Benjamin Netanyahu promised to annihilate after the attacks of October 7.
The ceasefire agreement stipulates that Hezbollah must withdraw its fighters north of the Litani River, about 30 kilometers from the Israeli border, with only the Lebanese army and UN peacekeeping forces (Finul) to be deployed in the area. On its part, in addition to its violations of the ceasefire which also went unanswered by Hezbollah, the Israeli army continues to occupy five "strategic" positions, while it was supposed, according to the text, to carry out a total withdrawal of its troops.
While some believed they could perceive a sign of Lebanonization of the Iranian agenda of Hezbollah, through its distancing from the war launched by Israel against the Islamic Republic, some in the land of the Cedars prefer to remain cautious.
"I will not be very optimistic when I hear the declarations of solidarity with Iran from Naïm Qassem, who said, word for word, 'to confirm and take pride in being alongside Iran and under the authority of Imam Khamenei'," confides Sami Nader, director of the Institute of Political Science at Saint Joseph University in Beirut.
Hezbollah is subject to the Shia principle of "wilayat al-faqih", which asserts the primacy of the religious over the political, a doctrine that explains why it places itself under the authority of the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, at the expense of the Lebanese state.
Moreover, according to a senior American official quoted by the Emirati newspaper The National, Hezbollah did not intervene in the last Iran-Israel war on Tehran's orders, in order to preserve "what remains of its strength."
The Shia party "is now under pressure to preserve itself. It has knelt down," said the American official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The question of Hezbollah's arsenal
More than an Iranian order or counter-order, Sami Nader indicates that Hezbollah, largely weakened by Israeli strikes on its strongholds in South Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut, was not in a position to enter into war.
"Several factors explain why it has remained withdrawn from the conflict, he emphasizes. The first is military, in the sense that its capabilities for action have been severely reduced after the last war that opposed it to Israel, during which its political and military leadership was decapitated."
In addition to Hassan Nasrallah and his cousin and designated successor, Hachem Safieddine, the Israeli army has eliminated almost all of its military command, while the explosions of beepers have pushed several thousand fighters away from the front. Not to mention that it has been deprived, since the fall of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, of its Syrian supply routes.
"In addition to this ground reality that made him understand that it was not really the time to clash once again with Israel and that his choices are limited, there are political reasons that explain Hezbollah's restraint, continues Sami Nader. His Shia political partner, Nabih Berri, President of Parliament and leader of the Amal movement, has been radically clear that Lebanon should not participate in a new direct confrontation with Israel."
"Having become even more indispensable nationally and essential within the Shia community after the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, Nabih Berri has 'measured what the cost of a new adventurism would be after all the consequences and destruction of the last war endured by the Shia community which once again paid an enormous price.'"
Direct clashes between Hezbollah and the Israeli army resulted in more than 3,800 deaths and nearly 15,000 injuries, mostly civilians on the Lebanese side according to the Ministry of Health, while around a hundred Israeli soldiers and civilians lost their lives according to official figures.
"Still on a political level, the question of Hezbollah's arsenal, long relegated to oblivion, has become central in Lebanon and the number one issue for the new power in place, Sami Nader believes. Consequently, the Shia party finds itself facing enormous pressure from various political actors, in addition to that from Western and regional powers."
Hezbollah is the only Lebanese group that did not disarm after the Taif agreements (Saudi Arabia) of 1989, which ended the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), in the name of the struggle against the Israeli occupation of the south of the country (1978-2000).
Since his election to the presidency of the land of the Cedars, after two years of presidential vacancy, Joseph Aoun and his Prime Minister Nawaf Salam are seeking, with the support of Western and Arab powers, to "extend the authority of the State over the entire Lebanese territory", which necessarily implies restoring the state's monopoly on weapons and therefore disarming Palestinian militias in refugee camps and Lebanese movements... including Hezbollah.
This cannot be done without dialogue with the pro-Iran party that does not seem inclined to renounce its weapons. "Our choice is the liberation of the land, the construction of the country, the refusal to submit to dictates or the enemy, and we will resist for our country, whatever the sacrifices," swore Naïm Qassem on Thursday.
