A fragile ceasefire and what it means for the future of Lebanon's Hezbollah

After two months of intense cross-border fighting, Israel and Lebanon agreed to a ceasefire in the last week of November.

Reports indicate that Israeli attacks over the past two months have resulted in nearly 4,000 deaths and 16,000 injuries, besides uprooting over one million Lebanese citizens.

Israeli media reports suggest that the ceasefire agreement mandates Hezbollah and other resistance groups to refrain from any military actions against Israel originating from Lebanese territory.

Simultaneously, Israel will abstain from land, air, and sea offensives against Lebanon, thereby aiming to terminate direct military confrontations between the parties.

However, media reports said that Israel has violated the ceasefire over 100 times, exposing the uncertainty of the truce.

Despite the fragility of the armistice, many hope for permanent peace as the agreement references United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, obligating Lebanon and Israel to adhere fully to this international framework.

Another significant provision concerning Lebanon stipulates that only official security and military forces are authorised to bear arms and conduct military operations in southern Lebanon.

This provision represents a significant step toward halting the activities of armed groups in the region.

Additionally, the Lebanese state will supervise the import of arms and military equipment to strengthen Lebanese sovereignty.

Lebanon is expected to deploy its security forces and military units along its southern borders and at designated strategic locations, while Israel is to withdraw its troops to the Southern Blue Line within 60 days.

Interpretations of the agreement are, however, polarised. Some analysts portray the ceasefire as a triumph for Israel, while others frame it as a victory for Lebanese Hezbollah.

Big questions remain: who will actually emerge as the victor, and what will be the trajectory for Lebanese Hezbollah’s future?

Is it a victory of Lebanon's Hezbollah?

Iranian officials and media were among the first to hail the ceasefire as a significant victory for Hezbollah, with the Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Major General Hossein Salami, congratulating Naim Qassem, the secretary general of Hezbollah.

In his message, Salami described the ceasefire as a strategic and humiliating defeat for Israel and suggested that it could signify the conclusion of the war in Gaza and the initiation of a broader ceasefire.

In an X-post, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi also remarked that “Hezbollah has once again shattered the myth of Israel’s invincibility” and asserted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been compelled to accept the ceasefire.

Proponents of the view that the ceasefire constitutes a victory for Hezbollah argue that, at the outset of the conflict, Israel articulated its primary objective as securing its northern borders and facilitating the return of settlers to the region.

However, over 56 days of intense offensives, Israel was unable to eliminate Hezbollah’s influence in the border areas, thereby failing to achieve its stated security strategy.

The Israeli army's need to sustain a concentrated military presence in the north diminished its operational capacity on the Gaza front and compelled approximately 60,000 settlers to remain displaced from their homes for extended periods.

This situation underscores Israel’s inability to establish long-term security along the Lebanese border and highlights its deviation from key military objectives.

On the other hand, despite suffering losses within its command structure, Hezbollah successfully and rapidly reconstructed its organisational framework, enabling it to sustain its attacks.

The missile attacks targeting Tel Aviv and Haifa, in particular, exposed significant vulnerabilities in Israel's security systems.

Notably, Israel was unable to fully neutralise Hezbollah's missile and drone capabilities despite the intensity of its offensives during the early stages of the conflict.

The large-scale attacks, particularly in recent days, compelled a substantial portion of the Israeli population to seek refuge in shelters. Consequently, the Israeli regime failed to secure its intended military objectives on the ground, prompting it to pursue a political resolution through negotiations.

For those who view Hezbollah as victorious, Israel's superior military power and air dominance were overshadowed by its strategic failures in ground operations in Lebanon, significantly altering the dynamics on the ground.

This scenario underscores that the Israeli military faced substantial challenges not only operationally but also politically and psychologically.

The growing number of troop losses in southern Lebanon, the failure to establish conditions for the secure return of settlers in the north, and Hezbollah's sustained resilience have diverted the Tel Aviv administration from its strategic objectives.

In this context, Netanyahu's decision to accept the ceasefire reflects not only failures on the battlefield but also the economic and political costs stemming from the Israeli army's attrition and the continual mobilisation of reservists.

The ceasefire underscores the fact that Israel has been compelled to recalibrate its stance in light of battlefield realities, signalling a profound shift in the regional balance of power.

What about an Israeli win?

Commentators who interpret the ceasefire as a victory for Israel primarily point to Hezbollah’s losses and its agreement to withdraw from the Israeli border.

According to these commentators, Israeli attacks inflicted the most significant blows in Hezbollah’s history, resulting in the loss of a substantial portion of its leadership.

The deaths of Hassan Nasrallah and his deputy, Hashim Safiyeddin—key figures who led the organisation for many years—along with political and military strategists such as Nabil Kavouk, have left an irreparable void in its military and political capacities.

Furthermore, the loss of senior commanders, including Fuad Shukour, Ibrahim Aqil, and Ali Kirki – who oversaw the organisation’s military wing – has significantly undermined Hezbollah’s operational strength.

Under the terms of the ceasefire agreement, Hezbollah was compelled to withdraw from the Israeli-Lebanese border to areas north of the Litani River, a move widely regarded as substantially reducing the organisation’s threat to northern Israel.

These developments are argued to have profoundly disrupted not only Hezbollah but also the Iranian-backed regional alliance.

The post-war landscape is seen as a significant weakening of the regional standing of Hezbollah and its allies, while Israel is viewed as having secured strategic advantages from this process.

What will be Hezbollah’s future?

An analysis of the commentary on the ceasefire in Lebanon reveals partial validity from all perspectives. However, some aspects are overlooked or neglected due to a tendency to interpret the event through ideological lenses.

Foremost among these oversights is the humanitarian dimension, particularly the joy of thousands of displaced Lebanese returning to their homes.

The biggest casualties of the two-month-long attacks on Lebanon were innocent civilians, who have now emerged as the primary beneficiaries of the ceasefire.

How, then, would this ceasefire impact the future of Hezbollah?

The ceasefire marks the beginning of a challenging period for Hezbollah, not only in military terms but also within the context of Lebanon's intricate domestic political dynamics.

Indeed, Hezbollah's actions against Israel, undertaken in support of Hamas immediately following the October 7 attacks, were interpreted by the Lebanese public through varying motives, sparking intense debates.

Some advocated a shared historical destiny between Palestine and Lebanon and viewed this intervention as a legitimate form of solidarity. Others vehemently criticised the conflict for its incompatibility with Lebanon's national interests.

In this context, the approach of Gebran Bassil, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement and a key Christian ally of Hezbollah, is particularly noteworthy.

While Bassil supported the armed capabilities of Hezbollah, he argued that this power should be exclusively allocated to Lebanon's defence needs and criticised the organisation's involvement in the Gaza-centered conflicts.

Criticism of Hezbollah was not confined to ideological or sectarian divisions but also resonated within its traditional alliances.

As the war escalated into a large-scale conflict, Hezbollah incurred significant losses and simultaneously confronted a process that called into question its social support among the Lebanese population.

The stringent enforcement of UN Resolution 1701 is expected to constrain Hezbollah's operational mobility, while critical losses within its leadership have compelled the organisation to undergo institutional restructuring.

Nevertheless, the organisation's socio-political legitimacy within the Shiite community, along with its military capabilities, continues to maintain its position as a central actor in Lebanese politics.

Hezbollah's increased focus on domestic politics in the forthcoming period appears inevitable within the context of post-war Lebanon's reconstruction.

The fact that the areas most affected by the conflict with Israel are the Shiite-majority settlements – which form the organisation's traditional base – could prompt Hezbollah to redefine its relations with these communities.

On the other hand, the efforts of anti-Hezbollah factions to capitalise on this process as a strategic opportunity to curtail the organisation's influence will further complicate the Lebanese political landscape.

In the aftermath of the war, Lebanon's political system seeks to establish a new equilibrium. It is crucial for Hezbollah to reassess its relations with other political actors, particularly in the process of electing a new leader.

The organisation's potential transition from an armed resistance movement to a political actor marks a transformation that warrants close attention, not only for Lebanon's internal dynamics but also for regional stability.

Given Lebanon's entrenched political fragilities, this process is, however, likely to face significant challenges.