Lebanon is facing an explosive dilemma. Amid escalating tensions, Israel has now twice targeted Beirut’s southern suburb (Dahieh) — the densely populated stronghold of Hezbollah — in less than a week. Citing “unidentified rocket fire” from north of the Litani River, Israel has officially added Dahieh to its list of military targets, intensifying fears that the occupation is preparing for a wider assault.
This escalation comes amid an ongoing assassination campaign targeting Hezbollah cadres from the south of the Litani to Hermel, Saida, and even the heart of Dahieh itself — an area that symbolises Hezbollah’s leadership, where both Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and his designated successor Sayyed Hashem Safieddine reside.
US Demands: Disarmament, Negotiations, or War
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatens strikes “anywhere in Lebanon,” U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus delivered a set of blunt demands to the Lebanese government. No longer limited to enforcing UN Resolution 1701 or removing Hezbollah’s presence south of the Litani, the American position now includes:
-
- A timetable for disarming Hezbollah,
-
- The formation of three Lebanese committees to negotiate with Israel,
-
- Talks over the five occupied points, Lebanese prisoners, and disputed areas along the Blue Line.
According to Ortagus, disarmament and formal negotiations are now preconditions for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied zones and any discussion of post-war reconstruction — a demand unprecedented even during the 2006 war.
Lebanon’s Leadership Torn Between Pressure and Principle
The U.S. pressure coincided with the suspension of the UN ceasefire monitoring committee, compounding political uncertainty in Beirut. A closed-door coordination session among Lebanon’s top three leaders — President Joseph Aoun, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam — resulted in a consensus: avoid a direct confrontation with the U.S., which could lead to catastrophic consequences.
Despite this, the leadership viewed Ortagus’ proposals as an attempt to coerce Lebanon into political concessions through military blackmail, particularly regarding normalisation with Israel.
France Steps In — With Limited Success
President Aoun’s recent trip to Elysée Palace sparked speculation about French mediation, led by President Emmanuel Macron, involving Trump and Netanyahu. But despite efforts to “cool the front,” France failed to protect Dahieh from Israeli attacks, nor did it halt the escalation.
France has advised Lebanon to avoid outright rejection of the proposed negotiating committees and instead consider a hybrid path combining technical and political dialogue. But Lebanese officials remain wary, especially after France’s mixed role in the post-Beirut port explosion era, and its open-door policy with Iran — a stance viewed by some as overly compromising.
A Call for Clarity from Lebanon
Some voices in Beirut are calling on the state to take a firm position on Ortagus’ proposals, pointing to past official commitments:
-
- The Ministerial Declaration clearly affirms state monopoly on arms,
-
- Lebanon’s approval of the 2006 ceasefire terms included a commitment to dismantle Hezbollah’s military presence south of the Litani.
Avoiding this issue may only delay an inevitable clash. Hezbollah’s military actions — once framed as deterrence — now invite direct Israeli aggression under U.S. protection, leaving 115 dead, over 300 injured, and thousands of homes destroyed in recent months alone.
Eastern Front: Syria Joins the Equation
Hezbollah’s isolation is now geographical. With the rise of Syria’s new administration under President Ahmed Al-Shara, the eastern border — once a Hezbollah stronghold — is no longer secure.
Recent clashes between Hezbollah and Syrian security forces in Hermel and Al-Qasr nearly escalated until intervention by the Lebanese Army and high-level talks between Lebanese and Syrian defence ministers, mediated by Saudi Arabia. The resulting agreement on land border demarcation and joint security mechanisms signals a shift in Syrian policy.
This change follows the fall of Bashar al-Assad, which cut Iran’s supply lines to Hezbollah, deprived it of strategic depth in Syria, and undermined its ability to justify armed resistance through the Shebaa Farms pretext — a territorial claim Assad refused to resolve.
Hezbollah’s Dilemma: Between Slogans and Survival
Despite being trapped from both south and east, Hezbollah maintains its rhetoric of resistance. Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, in a recent appearance following the Dahieh airstrikes, declared:
“The state must confront the aggression. We cannot accept Israel’s impunity.”He warned that “diplomacy is still possible,” but stressed that Hezbollah’s patience has limits.
Yet the question remains: Can Hezbollah endure the imbalance of power and return to open conflict with Israel, especially after the destruction and occupation resulting from the latest war?
Hezbollah’s recent statement condemned American-Israeli aggression across Syria, Yemen, Gaza, and Lebanon, asserting:
“The equation is now clear: either confrontation or surrender.”
The group has made it clear — disarmament is not an option, not only because of Israel but also due to potential threats from Syria.
We don’t run ads. We run on dua, dedication, and your support. Help us stay online
Government Statements vs Resistance Red Lines
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, in an apparent attempt to reassure Western and Gulf allies, recently declared:
“The issue of Hezbollah’s arms is now closed. The ‘Army, People, Resistance’ formula belongs to the past.”He insisted that all weapons must be under state control, as outlined in the ministerial statement.
This drew harsh criticism from Hezbollah and its allies. MP Mohammad Raad, speaking from the Iranian embassy, fired back:
“Those who imagine the resistance is finished should beware the intoxication of temporary power. Governments come and go. The equations shaped by martyrdom are eternal.”
Hezbollah also expressed anger over Salam’s visit to the south, where he omitted any mention of the resistance and skipped the funerals of Hezbollah martyrs. In a symbolic clash, Hezbollah and Amal Movement ministers sided with the president against the prime minister in a cabinet dispute over appointing the new central bank governor — a reflection of growing political rifts.
Lebanon at a Crossroads
With Ortagus returning to Beirut and American pressure intensifying, Lebanon can no longer afford delay. The geopolitical landscape has changed. The U.S. now seeks to dismantle Iranian influence, not merely contain it. Washington is blaming Beirut’s leadership for failing to fulfil ceasefire commitments, particularly Hezbollah’s disarmament north of the Litani.
This divergence in how the U.S. and Lebanon interpret the issue of Hezbollah’s arms may lead to a dangerous rift, effectively giving Tel Aviv free rein to launch further attacks. If war resumes, neither the Lebanese state nor Hezbollah may be able to shield civilians from another wave of displacement and destruction.
