The Lebanese people, renowned for their innate love of life, are among the most resilient populations, adapting effortlessly to both the calm of peace and the chaos of war. This deeply rooted resilience stems from an unwavering connection to their homeland, where each individual expresses their devotion to Lebanon uniquely.
However, as this small nation celebrated its 81st Independence Day, the reality feels far removed from the essence of genuine sovereignty. Foreign forces, particularly Israel’s IDF, are waging battles over significant portions of its territory, fueled by the escalating conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in southern Lebanon. Amid this tension, one universal wish unites all Lebanese, transcending political divides: the hope that their country will never face a fate akin to that of Gaza.
In Gaza, where comprehensive devastation has erased all semblance of normalcy, the people endure dire conditions, decades behind their neighbors in terms of basic human needs. Water, electricity, and housing—the foundations of modern life—are almost non-existent. Makeshift camps and inadequate shelters have become the only refuge for many, as the infrastructure lies in total ruin.
This harrowing scenario is precisely what the Lebanese fear for their homeland, regardless of their political allegiances. This fear extends to the southern villages that have borne the brunt of destruction, such as Yaroun, Kfar Kila, Aita al-Shaab, and many others.
But How Can Lebanon Avoid the Gaza Model, and How Did It Come to This?
The 2006 Syndrome: The Shadow of War Haunting Lebanon and Hezbollah
In the lives of nations and individuals, some moments leave indelible marks, sometimes transforming into psychological traps that keep their victims bound to a bygone era. This is the case for Lebanon, where, even years later, people live under the weight of the "2006 syndrome."
For decades, Lebanese society has been described as clinging to the "1960s syndrome," when the nation was hailed as the "Switzerland of the East" for its cultural sophistication and progressive outlook. However, political setbacks and wars gradually eroded Lebanon's leadership role in the region. While the Lebanese have come to terms with this decline, they have not relinquished memories of their past nor the "July War of 2006 syndrome," which has become deeply ingrained in their collective psyche.
In these days, no one could have foreseen the extent to which the war with Israel would grow geographically and destructively over 33 days – the duration of 2006 war. This conflict was not merely a military engagement; it marked a turning point that reshaped Lebanon's internal dynamics and left lasting impacts on all parties, particularly Hezbollah, which emerged from the war with more significant influence.
However, like Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah acted as though time had frozen at that moment, assuming that the conditions in 2006 would remain unchanged and that the past strategies would continue to succeed. What they underestimated was Israel's ability to learn from its mistakes. Following the 2006 war, Israel conducted a comprehensive review of its military and political strategies, preparing itself for a future confrontation in which it would hold the upper hand.
Unlike its adversaries, Israel did not view the 2006 war as "the end of history." The nation held its military and political leaders accountable for their failures and conducted a rigorous campaign to prepare for the next conflict. This readiness was about repairing weaknesses and ensuring that the next round of confrontations would decisively tilt in its favor.
In contrast, Hezbollah capitalized on the immediate gains of 2006, reinforcing its domestic and regional position while relying on the assumption that the conditions that enabled its success would remain intact. However, this complacency proved to be a strategic misstep. By supporting Hamas' recent escalations in Gaza, Hezbollah handed Israel a pretext it could scarcely have hoped for, putting itself in an increasingly precarious position.
Hezbollah's support for Hamas' actions in Gaza not only aligned it with a strategy that Israel had already prepared to counter but also exposed it to the risks of overextension. What may have initially seemed like an act of solidarity within the so-called "resistance axis" turned into a liability, creating vulnerabilities that Israel was quick to exploit.
The 2006 syndrome, while a symbol of resilience for Hezbollah and its supporters, has become a double-edged sword. It perpetuates a mindset stuck in a past where victories seemed achievable, ignoring the evolving realities of warfare, regional politics, and the increasing costs of conflict for Lebanon and its people. Whether Lebanon can break free from the shadow of 2006 remains a question central to its future.
Misguided Calculations: Hezbollah’s Strategic Errors
For decades, Hezbollah, revered by its supporters as "the Resistance," has based its decisions on strategic assumptions that shaped its confrontations with Israel. However, recent years have proven many of these assumptions to be flawed, as the party has underestimated the evolving capabilities of its adversary over the past 18 years. These misjudgments mirror the errors made by Hamas in Gaza, leading to significant vulnerabilities.
Israeli Air Superiority: Lack of Preparedness for Aerial Dominance
One of Hezbollah's most glaring strategic errors was underestimating Israel's overwhelming aerial superiority. Since the 2006 war, Hezbollah has remained constrained by international restrictions preventing it from acquiring advanced air defense systems. The outdated Syrian and Iranian systems it relies on, which date back decades, have proven incapable of countering Israel's state-of-the-art aircraft.
Even Iran, Hezbollah's primary ally, has been unable to supply it with modern Russian defense systems due to the sensitive geopolitical balances between Russia and Israel. When Iran attempted to transfer defensive equipment, Israeli strikes intercepted these shipments en route through Syria, thwarting any efforts to enhance Hezbollah's air-defense capabilities.
Misjudging Israel’s Resilience: The October 7, 2023
For many years, a central tenet of Hezbollah's strategy was the belief that Israeli society could not endure significant human losses. This assumption was shattered on October 7, 2023, when Israel experienced the highest casualty toll in its history in a single day.
The unprecedented magnitude of this tragedy fundamentally altered Israel's societal and strategic calculus. Instead of breaking under the weight of such losses, the Israeli populace and leadership demonstrated an unexpected resolve. Subsequent casualties no longer carried the same psychological or social impact, rendering this once-effective strategy obsolete.
Time Is No Longer an Advantage: Israel’s Capacity for Prolonged Conflict
Historically, Israel's wars have been short, measured in days or weeks, prompting its adversaries to adopt strategies designed to exploit this perceived limitation. However, this paradigm has been entirely upended in the most recent confrontations.
Israel's leadership, drawing lessons from past conflicts, has managed to sustain a prolonged military campaign. By employing a multifaceted approach that distracts domestic attention, Israel has reframed the war as an existential battle involving multiple fronts, from the hostage crisis in Gaza to skirmishes in the West Bank and extending to Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and even Iran.
While five of these fronts remain relatively quiet, the active conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon are being conducted decisively and unilaterally by Israel – as claimed by western media, with minimal losses on its side.
Post-2006: Hezbollah’s Ascendancy and Lebanon’s Shifting Landscape
Throughout its history, Lebanon has been marked by wars and sectarian strife, shaping its political and social reality. However, the end of the 2006 war with Israel represented a significant turning point, heralding Hezbollah's rise as a dominant political and military force, with its influence steadily expanding within Lebanon and across the region.
Following the war, Hezbollah's Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah delivered the "Victory Speech," dismissing the need to return to the National Dialogue Table. This forum had been convened to address critical strategic issues after the withdrawal of Syrian troops in the wake of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, attributed by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to Hezbollah and Syria, marked the beginning of a new era of political polarization.
Rather than engaging in dialogue, Hezbollah consolidated its power by strengthening its presence in Lebanon's political landscape. With unlimited Iranian support and Arab funds allocated for the reconstruction of southern villages, Hezbollah deepened its connection to its supportive base.
From Silent Opposition to Dominant Force
Hezbollah transitioned from a quiet opposition group to an assertive political player, eventually becoming the most influential entity in Lebanese decision-making. This dominance reached its peak in 2008 when Hezbollah used military force to alter the political balance, establishing new norms that have defined Lebanese political life ever since.
Since then, no government could be formed without Hezbollah's approval, regardless of parliamentary majorities or minorities. This effectively placed the party and its allies at the center of Lebanon's governance, rendering traditional democratic structures secondary.
The Syrian Civil War: A Costly Intervention
When Syria's civil war erupted, Hezbollah initially attempted to avoid direct involvement. Its leadership signed the Baabda Declaration, committing to distancing Lebanon from regional conflicts. However, under Iranian directives, Hezbollah abandoned this commitment and intervened to support Bashar al-Assad's regime.
This intervention came at a steep cost, both militarily and economically. While Hezbollah helped Assad's government evade international sanctions, it paid a heavier price in terms of exposure. The Syrian conflict revealed Hezbollah's previously secret tactics and weaponry, providing Israel—its primary adversary—with valuable intelligence to refine its military strategies.
International and Domestic Pressure
Despite Hezbollah's efforts to project itself as a formidable regional force—described by some of its supporters as more vital than many state armies—the growing international and Arab pressure on Iran and its allies has taken a toll.
The party's support base, primarily the Shiite community in Lebanon, began to feel the economic squeeze. Employment opportunities dwindled, not only within Lebanon but also abroad, as the community faced global scrutiny due to its perceived affiliation with Hezbollah.
As Lebanon's economic crisis deepened, the broader population was trapped in a cycle of worsening living conditions. Simultaneously, Hezbollah faced challenges, including internal difficulties and escalating external pressures.
Iranian financial aid, once a lifeline for Hezbollah, was no longer sufficient to cover the party's operational costs and sustain its base. Increasingly stringent Western and Arab sanctions further isolated Hezbollah, compounding its political and economic predicaments.
September 17: The Beginning of the End of the Myth
September 17, 2024, marked a watershed moment in Hezbollah's history, signaling the beginning of the end for its political and military dominance. Until that day, the party had maintained an image of unshakable strength, bolstered by domestic and regional dynamics that cemented its control over Lebanese decision-making.
Up to this date, U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein had made multiple visits to Lebanon, presenting a blend of "carrot-and-stick" diplomacy as part of an international effort to restructure the country's fragile political framework. Hochstein offered Hezbollah and its allies political and economic incentives at a time when Lebanon's other sectarian groups were grappling with leadership voids.
The Maronite Christian community was paralyzed by a prolonged presidential vacancy and persistent political divisions, while the Sunni bloc faced a leadership vacuum after former Prime Minister Saad Hariri's withdrawal from politics two years prior. This left the Sunni community fragmented and politically weakened.
Against this backdrop, the Shiite bloc, led by Hezbollah and its ally, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, appeared to have an unparalleled opportunity to consolidate its power. However, Berri, who had served as Hezbollah's primary negotiator since 2006, underestimated the significance of Hochstein's proposals. The offers, which included international guarantees and economic support, represented a rare chance for Hezbollah to avoid an existential confrontation. The rejection of these proposals would be a miscalculation with far-reaching consequences.
The Turning Point: A Series of Devasting Blows
On September 17, a cascade of events struck at the heart of Hezbollah's operational and leadership structures:
- Disruption of Communication Networks: Sophisticated cyberattacks targeted Hezbollah's communication systems, paralyzing its ability to coordinate field operations effectively.
- Elimination of Military Leadership: An airstrike on a Hezbollah leadership meeting resulted in the deaths of most of its senior military commanders in a single decisive blow.
- Displacement from Strategic Strongholds: Heavy bombardments forced mass evacuations from Hezbollah's strongholds in southern Lebanon and Beirut's southern suburbs, displacing hundreds of thousands of residents.
- The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah: The most significant blow came with the assassination of Hezbollah's Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah. Despite initial denials, reports of his death were confirmed in the days that followed, plunging the party into an unprecedented leadership vacuum.
These events marked the end of Hezbollah's era of unchallenged dominance, which had defined Lebanese politics since 2006. Once regarded as the nation's foremost military and political force, Hezbollah suddenly found itself confronting a new reality where its core strengths were systematically dismantled.
The implications of Hezbollah's collapse extend beyond Lebanon's borders, creating a ripple effect that could reshape regional power dynamics. Domestically, the country stands on the cusp of a transformative period, raising critical questions about its future.
Lebanon Today: Awaiting the Agreement and Redefining the Rules of the Game
Two months after the escalation of events in Lebanon, the nation finds itself in a state of anxious anticipation. The Lebanese people await the finalization of a historic agreement brokered by the United States, which now awaits review by Israel's war cabinet. This agreement, meticulously revised during a two-day visit by the American envoy to Beirut, represents a significant shift in addressing Lebanon's ongoing crisis, if it happens.
From 10 Kilometers to 20: A New Reality
Before September 17, international mediation efforts focused on securing the withdrawal of Hezbollah's "Radwan" offensive units 10 kilometers from the southern border. However, following the party's leadership collapse, the terms of engagement shifted dramatically.
The new agreement demands a complete withdrawal of Hezbollah's forces from southern Lebanon, pushing them beyond the Litani River to a depth of 20 kilometers. Strict Western guarantees aim to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Hezbollah's hands, whether through Syria or maritime routes.
A U.S.-led international committee, including France and other nations, will oversee the agreement's implementation. This involves ensuring that the Lebanese Army enforces the terms, with Western assurances that Israel will refrain from attacking Lebanon in the future, provided the Lebanese parties comply with the agreement.
A Different Kind of War
Leadership in Disarray
Despite this, the party continues to operate under direct Iranian oversight. Frequent visits by senior Iranian officials, such as Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Ayatollah Khamenei's advisor Ali Larijani, underscore Tehran's profound influence over what remains of Hezbollah's structure.
The Day After: What Does Lebanon’s Future Hold Following the Agreement?
As the contours of the new agreement begin to take shape, its architects appear intent on eliminating any possibility of rekindling future conflicts. The proposed land demarcation, expected to mirror the previously signed maritime agreement, aims to resolve border disputes decisively, closing the door on excuses for renewed tensions in the coming decades.
Yet, the more pressing questions center on Lebanon's internal dynamics. How will the excess power Hezbollah once wielded be managed? Moreover, how can Lebanon adapt to this new reality?
A Grim Alternative: The Path of Endless Resistance
If mediation efforts fail to bring an end to the current war, the likely scenario is precise: Hezbollah will follow in the footsteps of Hamas in Gaza, fighting to the last breath or until direct orders are issued from Tehran. The party relies on an old but, in its view, effective equation: mere survival on the battlefield constitutes a victory.
From the perspective of the "Axis of Resistance," as long as the Israeli Army is mired in the "Lebanese quagmire," the ongoing attrition is considered a success. Endless fighting, regardless of the toll, becomes a strategy designed to keep Israel engaged, burdened with military and human losses.
Hezbollah's potential path mirrors the grim reality of Gaza—a perpetual cycle of resistance and destruction. The costs of such a strategy are immense, not only for the party but also for Lebanon as a whole. This raises the stakes for resolving the conflict through the current negotiations, as the alternative threatens to drag Lebanon further into a state of prolonged instability and suffering.
The coming days will reveal whether the agreement can pave the way for a stable and sovereign Lebanon or whether the nation will remain in endless conflict. The stakes for Lebanon's future and its ability to rebuild as a unified state could not be higher.
“Sinwarstan” Lebanese Style
This logic opens the door to the terrifying prospect of southern Lebanon transforming into a version of "Sunwarstan" in Gaza—a model where resistance persists until the last stone is overturned, leaving devastation in its wake. It envisions a perpetual conflict that disregards the cost, plunging the region into a cycle of destruction that spares nothing and no one.
The fear of such a scenario repeating itself in Lebanon grows more tangible as the war drags on without resolution. This vision, one that annihilates infrastructure and drains the people more than it does the enemy, forces the most pressing question:
Can Lebanon withstand a reality akin to Gaza's relentless suffering? Or will the mounting pressure—domestically and internationally—drive all parties to seek a resolution that salvages what remains of the nation?
The stakes have never been higher, and the choices made now will determine whether Lebanon escapes the shadow of ruin or succumbs to a prolonged, devastating stalemate.
The 81st Independence Day: A Renewed Hope
For decades, domestically and internationally, the Lebanese Army has been viewed as the cornerstone of the nation's stability. Recent events, such as the search for Iranian Supreme Leader Advisor Ali Larijani at Beirut Airport, signal potential shifts in how official institutions handle sensitive matters—perhaps even the first steps toward reclaiming state independence in decision-making.
Nevertheless, can the long-held dream of a unified, strong army representing only the Lebanese state truly be realized?
Hezbollah's new Secretary-General, Naeem Qassem, has recently hinted at a new engagement phase with the Lebanese state. He spoke of adhering to the Lebanese Constitution and the Taif Agreement—a notable shift in rhetoric for a party often criticized for prioritizing external agendas over national interests.
If these declarations hold, Lebanon could seize a genuine opportunity to end its role as Iran's forward defense line in its confrontation with Israel.
Despite cautious optimism, concerns remain. There is a growing fear that implementing the current agreement might shift the problem from Lebanon's southern borders to its northern regions, beyond the Litani River where many Lebanese, including former supporters of Hezbollah, have grown disillusioned with the party's choices and practices, which have led to the country's international isolation and internal exhaustion.
Comments