Hezbollah pushes Lebanon into the path of “Peace by Force”

Source:Nida Al Watan

Lebanon is facing a devastating war on its own territory and paying the highest price for Iran’s decision to consider the country an integral part of its defensive line. As Iran’s missile stockpile began to run low, it reportedly turned to the remaining arsenal held by Hezbollah, pushing Lebanon into the midst of a broader war that spares no one.

All indicators suggest that the Israeli operation will not stop at limited objectives. Tel Aviv seeks to strip Hezbollah of its weapons and appears determined not to repeat past mistakes. Washington is central to this approach, as the prospect of eliminating the Iranian regime while leaving its most dangerous regional arm intact in Beirut is seen as unacceptable.

The likelihood of a wider war is increasing, and Israel appears to be preparing for a ground incursion and the expansion of a buffer zone. Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem’s acknowledgment of the imbalance of power between the group and Israel is a clear indication of the scale of the challenge ahead and of what he described as a battle that Iran has drawn Lebanon into.

Appeals by Qassem and other Hezbollah figures to their support base also reveal a widening gap between the leadership and its constituency. Many within the Shiite community are reportedly discontent with the war, aware that Hezbollah entered the conflict in support of Iran rather than in pursuit of Lebanese objectives. Signs of frustration within the group’s traditional base have begun to surface publicly, amid reported dissatisfaction from Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri over what he sees as Hezbollah’s failure to honor commitments and its actions that have effectively misled the Lebanese state.

The Lebanese government is placing limited hope in its diplomatic contacts with the United States, France, the Vatican and other influential capitals. International actors largely hold Hezbollah responsible for opening the front, and there is a clear demand for the group to be disarmed as a central condition for any future settlement or international support.

This international position reflects the absence of meaningful backing for Hezbollah’s project. On the contrary, there is growing frustration with actions widely seen as serving Iran’s regional agenda, which faces opposition both in the Arab world and internationally. As the possibility of a broader ground offensive increases, Lebanon’s attempts to calm the situation appear increasingly ineffective, particularly as Hezbollah insists on continuing its confrontation and drawing the country deeper into the war.

Warnings from U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus, followed by envoy Tom Barrack, have been explicit: Hezbollah cannot return to the status quo that existed previously, and the Lebanese state must move to disarm the group. Barrack spoke even more directly about the consequences awaiting Lebanon should it continue aligning itself with the Iranian project while attempting to maneuver around the United States and the broader international community.

U.S. President Donald Trump is pursuing what he describes as peace through strength. Hezbollah, however, appears not to have drawn lessons from the events in Gaza, and its actions risk provoking a far broader Israeli military campaign than before, one that could ultimately become the decisive confrontation.

Should the Iranian regime ultimately collapse, the geopolitical map of the Middle East would change dramatically, ushering in what some believe could be a new phase of regional peace. Lebanon’s diplomatic efforts to halt the war therefore appear increasingly urgent, as Israel continues to escalate its demands and seems unlikely to accept anything short of security arrangements that guarantee its safety for years and bring the military conflict with Lebanon to an end.

Lebanon cannot remain detached from the broader developments unfolding across the region. Iran’s confrontations with several Arab states have reinforced perceptions of the risks associated with its regional strategy. In that context, Lebanon is unlikely to be able to align itself with that project against the broader Arab framework, and may instead become part of a wider regional settlement.

Hezbollah’s decision to support Gaza and later Iran effectively brought the Israeli war to Lebanon. As Trump emphasizes a doctrine of peace through force, Hezbollah has, knowingly or not, drawn the country into this trajectory. The war could ultimately end with the signing of a peace agreement that opens a new phase in relations between Lebanon and Israel under the banner of lasting peace.

What once seemed impossible may now appear conceivable. Lebanon cannot remain outside the broader Arab consensus, and with the decline of Iran’s regional influence and the country’s release from its grip, Lebanon could regain an independent national decision-making capacity and negotiate in accordance with its own interests. After decades of conflict, during which its territory was repeatedly used as an arena for regional confrontation, the country faces a moment in which the costs of remaining trapped in cycles of war may finally force a different path.