Hezbollah’s déjà vu: dragging Lebanon into the fire, again

Hezbollah’s latest declarations regarding Iran have revived deep anxieties in Lebanon, not only because of their regional implications, but because they appear to signal a troubling disregard for the hard lessons of the group’s most recent war with Israel.

After opening a “support front” for Gaza against Tel Aviv on 8 October 2023 and suffering devastating political, military and social consequences, Hezbollah is once again positioning itself at the forefront of a broader regional confrontation; this time in defense of Iran’s regime in the event of a military confrontation targeting Tehran or Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.

For a country still reeling from war, economic collapse and institutional paralysis, such rhetoric raises serious questions about whether Lebanon is being pushed toward another conflict it cannot endure.

A familiar logic of “support wars”

In a televised address delivered during rallies in solidarity with Iran, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem warned that “any potential aggression” against Iran would inevitably target Hezbollah as well, stressing that the group is “determined to defend itself.” He stressed that Hezbollah would decide how to act should such a scenario unfold, but categorically rejected neutrality. Going further, Qassem cautioned that a new war on Iran would “ignite the region,” framing any attack on Tehran as a threat to regional and international stability.

This framing closely mirrors the logic that led Hezbollah to open a front against Israel in solidarity with Hamas in Gaza. That decision, presented at the time as a limited act of support, quickly escalated into a full-scale war in 2024; proving that miscalculation could lead to a rapid escalation and devastating consequences. Indeed, the outcome was catastrophic: widespread destruction in southern Lebanon, massive forced displacement, heavy human losses and the decimation of much of Hezbollah’s senior leadership (namely former longtime Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah) and military infrastructure. Lebanon is still paying the price, with reconstruction stalled and ceasefire violations continuing to destabilize the south.

Against this backdrop, Qassem’s statements suggest that Hezbollah has not fully internalized the costs of that experience.

Ideological commitments over national interests

Qassem’s speech went beyond strategic warnings and underscored Hezbollah’s ideological alignment with Iran.

He addressed remarks by US President Donald Trump calling for “new leadership” in Iran, portraying any threat to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as an assault on regional and global stability, thus reaffirming the group’s religious and political allegiance to Iran’s system of governance and the concept of “Wilayat al-Faqih.” This positioning reinforces long-standing criticisms that Hezbollah’s strategic decisions are shaped less by Lebanese national interests than by its role within Iran’s regional axis.

For many Lebanese, this is precisely the problem. The country’s fragile recovery depends on distancing itself from regional conflicts, not doubling down on them. Yet Hezbollah’s rhetoric appears to prioritize ideological loyalty over the realities facing Lebanon, including economic struggles, international isolation and growing domestic opposition to renewed, uncalculated military adventures.

Domestic rejection and growing unease

The reaction inside Lebanon was swift and unusually broad. Political figures across party lines (such as the Lebanese Forces, Kataeb Party, Free Patriotic Movement, Progressive Socialist Party, among others) warned that Qassem’s remarks risk giving Israel justification to escalate militarily and undermine the already fragile ceasefire. Despite holding a session to discuss and debate the 2026 draft general budget law, members of parliament (MPs) openly questioned whether Lebanon should once again be dragged into a war fought for objectives beyond its borders.

In addition, Qassem’s statements have complicated efforts by the Lebanese state to reassert authority and prevent renewed escalation. President Joseph Aoun, Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have all stressed that Lebanon cannot serve as a battlefield for regional struggles. The presidency has reportedly conveyed a clear message that decisions of war and peace must rest solely with the state, reinforcing plans to advance the phased implementation of arms exclusivity under state authority. At the same time, Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants Youssef Raggi asked his Iranian counterpart Abbas Aragchi to “persuade Hezbollah to adopt a rational approach.” Meanwhile, international pressure is mounting for Beirut to advance plans to place all weapons under state control; a prerequisite for reconstruction aid and political stabilization.

By openly linking Lebanon’s security to Iran’s fate, Hezbollah risks deepening its isolation domestically and internationally. Rather than strengthening its position, such rhetoric may accelerate efforts to curtail its military autonomy and reinforce the perception that it is willing to gamble with Lebanon’s future.

Even within the Shiite community (Hezbollah’s core support base) there are signs of fatigue and concern. Analysts and political observers, such as Ali al-Amine, note that while public expressions of loyalty may persist, enthusiasm for another confrontation is notably absent. Many Shiites, like other Lebanese, are focused on rebuilding their lives, returning displaced families to their homes and avoiding yet another cycle of destruction.

The memory of the last war remains fresh, and the question increasingly being asked is simple: if the previous “support war” brought such heavy losses, what justification exists for risking an even broader and more dangerous conflict in defense of Iran (especially amid a new and hardline American administration under Trump)?

An unsustainable path forward

The local and regional environments today are far less forgiving than in the past. Regional power balances have shifted, Hezbollah’s military capabilities have been significantly degraded and Lebanon’s margin for error has all but vanished. Any new conflict would unfold under conditions of clear military imbalance and minimal international sympathy for Lebanon’s plight.

Persisting in the logic of “support wars” may satisfy ideological commitments, but it threatens to impose unbearable costs not only on the community that Hezbollah claims to represent, but on a country already struggling and suffering from various chronic issues.

Hence, Hezbollah’s pledge to stand with Iran in the event of war suggests a dangerous readiness to repeat past mistakes. By signaling willingness to entangle Lebanon in another regional confrontation, the group risks plunging the country into a new cycle of devastation; one that Lebanon, its Shiite community and Hezbollah itself can no longer afford. At a moment when restraint, reflection and a sense of national responsibility are urgently needed, the decision to revisit a failed strategy raises profound questions about where Lebanon is being led, who truly holds the reins of decision-making and, ultimately, who will bear the cost of these choices.