Major political transformations often give birth to significant political movements, acting as both the harvest of the past era and the bridge through which nations and masses cross into the future after major wars dismantle the pillars of the past. This is precisely what occurred in Lebanon following the Israeli invasion of 1982, which struck amid a brutal civil war. The Amal Movement remained, and out of its midst, Hezbollah was born.
Hezbollah has remained a prominent force on the scene for nearly four decades, with three of them under the leadership of its late Secretary-General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. During this time, the party led the resistance, raising its banners high, while other Lebanese resistance projects, such as the Islamic Group’s “Forces of Dawn” in Lebanon, faded into the background. Hezbollah sculpted a model for Lebanese resistance that transcended sectarianism both locally and across the Arab and Islamic worlds. Nationalists and Nasserists viewed Nasrallah as the leader the Arab world had lacked since the passing of President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasrallah, with his eloquence, resistance, and bravery, became a beacon for many. The religiously devout, despite differing sects, united around the broader circle of Islam and resistance, and Nasrallah became the symbol of Arab and Islamic resistance against Israel. The image of Sayyed Nasrallah alongside Khaled Mashal of Hamas was enough to cement this concept.
However, the winds of the Arab revolutions a decade ago dealt a severe blow to this image, creating a deep rift, no less than the one caused by the invasion of Kuwait in the early 1990s. Tough questions arose: Where is the line between political action and moral responsibility? Is resisting Israel enough to forgive other military policies that have targeted fellow Muslims and Arabs? We reached a critical moment on October 7, 2023.
The spotlight shifted from Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, and Hamas took the initiative. Hezbollah and the Lebanese resistance accepted a secondary role, supporting the resistance in Gaza, as well as on the Yemeni and Iraqi fronts. While Hezbollah carefully calculated complex strategic moves without violating the rules of engagement, Israel brazenly disregarded all such rules, assassinating former Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. It then shifted focus to Lebanon, closing this chapter with the assassination of Nasrallah.
The fate of the Lebanese resistance, or what can now be termed the “Support Front for Gaza” in Lebanon, hangs by a thread. Is this the end of Hezbollah? Possibly, but it is unlikely to be the end of Lebanese resistance. Who will now carry the torch, and who will represent the resistance? Lebanon faces difficult days ahead, with the threat of a ground invasion reminiscent of the 1982 invasion of Beirut, and with little leverage to curb Tel Aviv’s aggression.
A ceasefire scenario seems the most realistic outcome. From Israel’s perspective, this moment presents an opportunity to halt northern hostilities and allow northern residents to return home, which would spell a bitter defeat for Hezbollah and the resistance in Lebanon overall.
In these trying times, the Lebanese state and its various factions, since the Taif Agreement, find themselves at a critical crossroads. Without the resistance and its weapons, Lebanon stands exposed, lacking any real shield against Israeli aggression. The resistance, deeply wounded, can no longer claim to represent or protect Lebanon—at least, not in the immediate future.
Iran’s option in its sphere of influence in Lebanon is now facing dwindling resources. Lebanon is not Iraq, where sectarian quotas and regional balances create a buffer. Moreover, the Islamic Group’s “Forces of Dawn” lacks the influence and support to inherit Hezbollah’s position overnight. These are historic moments for the Arab world, marked by profound changes in the balance of power and movements across the region.
