The strategy for response to Israel’s recent assassination of Hizbullah’s military strategist, Fuad Shukr, and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, has taken a measured approach according to Hizbullah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah has promised a response, though he suggests it will be gradual and subtle, rather than immediate and aggressive. Hizbullah’s legislator, Ali Fayyad, echoes this sentiment, stating that response is essential, but that the delay is intentional and part of their strategic approach.
This tentative approach aligns with that of Iran, Hizbullah’s ally, as both are keen to avoid sparking a broader regional conflict and are instead advocating for easing tensions through a mutual ceasefire in Gaza and minimising major retaliations. In a recent discussion with US envoy Amos Hochstein, originally from Israel, Lebanon’s interim prime minister Najib Mikati stressed the urgency of pressuring Israel to cease its attacks. Mikati suggested that the path to resolution lay in instituting a Gaza ceasefire and adhering to UN Security Council resolutions.
Mikati emphasised the importance of resolution 1701 which advocates for the demilitarisation of the Israel-Lebanon border area, involving a withdrawal of Hizbullah forces, an increase in the presence of the Lebanese military, and enhancing the role of UN peacekeepers in the area. After a subsequent conversation with Nabih Berri, parliament speaker and Hizbullah collaborator, Hochstein underlined the need for quick action, asserting that there are no valid reasons for further delays.
In contrast, Israel’s defence minister, Yoav Gallant, issued a stern warning that any aggressive retaliation from Hizbullah could lead to severe consequences for Lebanon. Hizbullah’s current position does not allow for them to antagonise Israel, whether politically or militarily, particularly in light of Lebanon’s ongoing political turmoil and economic crisis. According to the World Bank, this crisis has plunged almost half of the Lebanese population into poverty since 2019.
Hizbullah, an influential player in Lebanese politics, holds part of the responsibility for the current state of affairs. The militant organisation first gained seats in the parliament in 1992, secured cabinet positions, and together with its allies, dominated the house of representatives between 2018 and 2022.
If Hizbullah found itself in a renewed conflict with Israel, its fighter force could suffer substantial casualties and its weapons arsenal, which is believed to include 150,000 rockets, 2,000 unmanned aerial vehicles and anti-tank munitions, could be significantly reduced or completely wiped out. Such circumstances may challenge Hizbullah’s reasoning for retaining its weaponry as a deterrent against assault. Moreover, the weakening of Hizbullah, Iran’s strongest regional ally, would inadvertently affect Iran’s power too.
Back in 2006, Israel launched a 34-day long attack on Lebanon following an intrusion by Hizbullah fighters on the Israeli frontier. The conflict resulted in over 1,200 Lebanese fatalities, displacement of one million inhabitants, and extensive damage to Lebanon’s infrastructure. Israeli casualties were approximately 165, with nearly half a million people displaced. In light of both Israel and Hizbullah now being equipped with advanced weaponry and enhanced military capabilities, any subsequent warfare could lead to increased death tolls, greater devastation, and further displacement of civilians on both sides.