Hezbollah made headlines with its recent war games at the border with Israel, showcasing its readiness to confront Tel Aviv. While tensions between Hezbollah and Israel have been escalating, this military display carried a dual message, not only to Israel but also to the Lebanese people. Despite Hezbollah claiming the exercise was in relation to the anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, it also served as a reminder of their invasion of Beirut in 2008 and the threats they posed to their opponents.
This show of force, however, poses a significant risk to Lebanon's unity and future. Observing the images and media coverage, it raises questions about the missiles' actual target - Lebanon itself. Advocates for a strong centralized Lebanese state seemed to turn a blind eye to this display while focusing on trivial issues such as bikinis or burkinis on Saida beach. This begs the question of how Hezbollah's violation of central sovereignty fits into their views, and where the Lebanese Armed Forces stand in allowing such unilateral decision-making on matters of war and peace. If Hezbollah already enjoys de facto autonomous decision-making powers, should this privilege not be extended to all?
This demonstration by Hezbollah is an insult to the entire Lebanese state, underscoring that the group's agenda is more aligned with Tehran's regime than the interests of Lebanon. The timing of this message also signifies Hezbollah's desire to assert control over Lebanon's political future, including decisions regarding the presidency and other key positions.
Meanwhile, the Syrian regime is seeking increased influence in Lebanon, highlighting a contradiction within French foreign policy. While the French president's team supports a candidate with ties to both Bashar Assad and Hezbollah, the French Foreign Minister calls for Assad's trial due to his involvement in the civil war's atrocities. Yet, Hezbollah collaborated with Assad's forces and remains stationed in Syria alongside the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. If Assad is to face justice, should his allies not be held accountable for their crimes as well?
In reality, Hezbollah, like Assad, has been granted international legitimacy, either publicly or through behind-the-scenes intelligence deals. Even Israel has contributed to this recognition, particularly following its withdrawal from Lebanon. Hezbollah's control and decision-making power have become undeniable, making it the primary authority to engage with when seeking real influence in Lebanon. This mini military display serves as a reminder that the south is firmly under Hezbollah's control.
Moreover, the recent alignment between Hezbollah and Hamas is noteworthy. Iran, through Hezbollah, aims to strengthen its position and influence in any potential future deals. This echoes events leading up to the 2006 war, where Hassan Nasrallah's speech, claiming responsibility for coordinated attacks in Lebanon and Gaza, served as a trigger for Israeli intervention. Israel was determined not to allow both files to be in the hands of Hezbollah and Iran simultaneously.
However, since 2006, Israel's actions have inadvertently contributed to Hezbollah's elevated status. Lebanon's political future is now intertwined with regional deal-making rather than solely dependent on internal political dynamics. To break free from this cycle, Lebanon needs a different political system that can provide agency and navigate the changing dynamics of the region.
Hezbollah's recent display of power also raises questions about its place within the evolving Middle East. The region is experiencing a shift with reconciliations emerging from within, rather than relying solely on international initiatives. Whether it's the reconciliation between Turkey and Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia, or even Israel and the signatory states of the Abraham Accords, regional dynamics are transforming and will undoubtedly impact the future of Hezbollah and Lebanon.
When contemplating Lebanon's future, two scenarios emerge: stability in Syria or the adoption of a new political system like federalism. In the first scenario, stakeholders must recognize that investing in Lebanon without stability in Syria is a geopolitical zero-sum game, as the Lebanese lack agency. The second option involves Lebanon gaining agency, mirroring the region's trajectory by implementing a new political system. While Hezbollah advocates for the wrong option, it may not work to their advantage this time.