In contrast to the previous ‘12-Day War’ in June last year, when Hezbollah stayed out of the Israel-Iran conflict, the joint U.S.-Israel war against Iran has seen the Lebanese group re-open a front against Israel. This follows a ‘ceasefire’ arrangement struck in November 2024 whereby Hezbollah backed down from tying the Lebanon front to a ceasefire in Gaza.
The ceasefire itself was one-sided in nature, as Israel continued to conduct numerous strikes targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon that could be considered violations of the agreement, without being met with a response from Hezbollah, which had suffered devastating losses in its 2024 war with Israel. The best explanation for why Israel continued to conduct strikes in the aftermath of the ‘ceasefire’, the perspective of the international overseers of the ‘ceasefire’ (the U.S. and France), and the Lebanese government’s own positioning on the matter, was captured in an interview with Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi (who is known for his strong opposition to Hezbollah) published by Sky News Arabia in January. Raggi explained:
Hezbollah’s ideological credibility is on the line as the crown jewel of the Iranian-backed resistance axis.
“Regrettably this announcement or this agreement came for the interest of Israel, because when you are defeated…and requesting a ceasefire, the stronger side imposes its conditions on you.The resolution was not for the interest of the Lebanese side [Hezbollah] that entered the war, and this was known by all the Lebanese leaders in power at the time: the Lebanese government, Hezbollah and its allies. This side and the Lebanese government accepted the Israeli conditions that are under international guarantee. This announcement says that Lebanon disarms Hezbollah- I repeat- in exchange for Israel stopping its attacks. So long as Hezbollah’s weapons are not definitively confiscated, Israel has the right- regrettably- to continue its attacks.
[…]
As I told you earlier, they [the international guarantors of the agreement] consider that so long as Lebanon has not implemented all the clauses of the announcement to cease military operations, regrettably- and I say this for the fifth time- Israel has the right to continue its attacks.”
In other words, the original ‘ceasefire’ agreement (which can be found here) is interpreted by Israel, the agreement’s international guarantors and the Lebanese government as requiring the disarmament of Hezbollah, given that the agreement mentions fully implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (passed following the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war) and in particular emphasises the ‘disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon'- obviously including Hezbollah. Certainly, Israel did not sign up to the agreement in the hope of just ‘mowing the lawn’ with Hezbollah, but rather to definitively end any security threat posed by Hezbollah to its northern borders.
Only a complete disarmament would have averted an eventual major re-escalation on the Lebanon front.
The disarmament south of the Litani river was only supposed to be the first phase of Hezbollah’s disarmament, and during that phase Hezbollah was willingly handing over many positions and weapons caches to the Lebanese army. But the fact is that Hezbollah proved unwilling to fully disarm. And so, from the perspective of Israel, the U.S. and France, continued strikes on Hezbollah were justified. Although the Lebanese government formally lodged a complaint with the UN about what it saw as Israeli violations of the ceasefire, it was still hoping to secure Hezbollah’s disarmament.
However, the government understandably feared an armed confrontation with Hezbollah to enforce disarmament, given that its own army would likely have proved unwilling or incapable of undertaking the task. As such, while the Lebanese government was not happy about the Israeli strikes, it was also not willing to take meaningful steps to protect or save Hezbollah: if anything, it may have hoped that the persistent Israeli pressure would increase the chances of disarmament.
In the end, Hezbollah has chosen to reject disarmament, given the centrality of ‘resistance’ against Israel to its ideology. It is certainly fair to say that only a complete disarmament would have averted an eventual major re-escalation on the Lebanon front, but the current escalation also has its own driving factors: for Hezbollah, a war that threatens to destroy its main foreign patron (the Islamic Republic) is surely an existential matter, and Hezbollah’s own ideological credibility is on the line as the ‘crown jewel’ of the Iranian-backed ‘resistance axis.’
Despite widespread local anger in Lebanon at Hezbollah for choosing to reopen the front with Israel, and despite the government continuing to take a firm stance requiring Hezbollah’s disarmament, many Hezbollah supporters remain defiant. Below is an interview I conducted on 8 March with one Hezbollah supporter in Lebanon- Houssein Tarshishi- regarding the escalation and Hezbollah’s thinking and positioning.
Q: Many people in Lebanon criticise Hezbollah as they say the party has brought war upon Lebanon by firing rockets at Israel. What do you think of this and what are the resistance’s aims in entering war again after the losses in the 2024 war?
A: First, Hezbollah did not violate the ceasefire over the past two years, and the land continued to be subject to raids, while the state did nothing. Second, Hezbollah entered the war before an Israeli plan to attack Lebanon began. And so the party directed a pre-emptive strike at the Israeli enemy.
Hezbollah complied with everything asked of it and handed over its weapons south of the Litani.
The position is steadfast and will not change. We are all under the banner of al-Hujja ibn al-Hasan [Imam al-Mahdi]. We will not be content with humiliation. As you have seen with the raid that took place yesterday [on Nabi Chit], very violent clashes took place with the mujahidin and the people of the villages who sought to protect their villages from this evil enemy, and the Israelis did not know how to flee from these confrontations, and so they intensified their airstrikes on Nabi Chit and the neighbouring areas, but by the grace of God they did not attain their aim, and they will not attain it so long as the people cling to the roots of the land.
And all are under the banner of the resistance to liberate all of Lebanon, Jerusalem and Palestine. We will not let go of the resistance or its choice. And all we possess is in service to the resistance, including our lives, children and homes. We will continue until we achieve the divine victory we are promised and liberate Jerusalem and all the Middle East from the Zionists and the Americans. And we will not bow and we will fight until the last breath. The mujahidin are realising great accomplishments and this is through granting of success from God.
Q: What is your response to the Lebanese who say that neutralising Israel requires disarming Hezbollah? Likewise before this war began again, there was talk about dismantling Hezbollah positions in the areas south of the Litani River. Was this for real or just for media?
Hezbollah is very strong and Hezbollah is the one that will restore the land to its owners.
A: Hezbollah complied with everything asked of it and handed over its weapons south of the Litani. This was all for real so that Hezbollah could prove to the Lebanese that Israel was continuing with its big plans and would not be neutralised even if Hezbollah were disarmed. And the violations continued throughout the ceasefire, and thus disarming Hezbollah would not have neutralised Israel, but rather Israel is striving to realise a greater Israel in the region and this plan will not be realised.
Q: How do you interpret the Lebanese government’s decision to ban Hezbollah’s military and security activity? Is this a real measure, given that Nabih Berri [of the Amal Movement] agreed to this decision?
A: It is real, but Hezbollah is striving for a Lebanese state that lives with dignity and has the right to self-defence and is a sovereign state, not a subordinate one.
Q: But in your view why did the Lebanese government adopt this decision?
A: The government wants to prove to the public that it tried to deter Hezbollah, and so that Hezbollah bears entire responsibility for the war and its damages, while the Lebanese government is absolved.
Q: In your view is the Amal Movement [the other main Shiite party] abandoning Hezbollah and its alliance with the latter?
The equation of people-army-resistance is still valid and won’t be undone.
A: Both the Amal Movement and Hezbollah are in the same boat. No disagreement will arise.
Q: How do you assess the role of the Lebanese army in the current events?
A: For its part, the army is undertaking its obligation as required. The army is a relief valve with the resistance . The equation of people-army-resistance is still valid and won’t be undone.
Q: Before the outbreak of this new phase of the war, Hezbollah was reportedly manufacturing rockets and drones again to compensate for its losses in the 2024 war. Is this true?
A: Not at all. Hezbollah had no time to make them anyway, for it was only organising its ranks.
Q: Finally what’s your message to the Lebanese who are cursing Hezbollah at this time, and what’s your message to the West and America?
A: The Lebanese must know well that Hezbollah is very strong and Hezbollah is the one that will restore the land to its owners. They should not curse or rejoice much. Hezbollah will liberate the land and protect it, and will not abandon the choice of resistance in the face of the aggression. The West and America must know that Hezbollah is a path and course that has been ongoing for more than 1400 years and they will not be able to stop it whatever happens.
Published originally on March 11, 2026.
