Lebanon Prioritizes Diplomacy to Prevent Renewed Conflict as Hezbollah Bolsters Preparedness

Lebanon’s leadership is pursuing U.S.-mediated diplomacy in a bid to prevent a new war with Israel, even as Israeli forces maintain a presence in southern Lebanon and Hezbollah declines to surrender its arsenal.

Beirut faces a constrained position: it has committed to disarming Hezbollah but has yet to secure an Israeli withdrawal, which would bolster its negotiating hand.

Analysts suggest the government’s most viable leverage lies with Washington, which could pressure Israel to meet Lebanese security demands.

“The only leverage Beirut has is its positive relationship with the United States,” said Faysal Itani, adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University. Lebanese officials hope this connection will translate into U.S. pressure on Israel, Itani told Arab News.

A fundamental obstacle remains, Itani notes: “Israel does not trust Lebanon to deliver on its security guarantees.”

The stakes for Lebanon extend beyond avoiding fresh fighting; a renewed conflict could further weaken the government, displace communities again, and deepen divisions over whether Hezbollah’s weapons serve as protection or provocation.

According to the International Organization for Migration, nearly 330,000 people were internally displaced as of late September, while over 877,000 had returned home after being displaced by the Israeli military escalation in March, which followed Hezbollah rocket attacks retaliating against joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran.

President Joseph Aoun reaffirmed Lebanon’s commitment to diplomacy during talks with visiting German minister for economic cooperation and development Reem Alabali-Radovan, stating that wars have failed to achieve their intended goals.

Aoun outlined four negotiating demands: a ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal, border demarcation, and prisoner exchanges. He noted that progress on these fronts has not materialized.

He also urged Israel to halt attacks and comply with existing agreements, warning that strikes on civilian areas and infrastructure are deepening suffering and undermining stability efforts.

His appeal followed a statement by Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem, who rejected disarmament under a U.S.-brokered framework agreement reached in June, calling it illegitimate and “null and void.”

Qassem asserted that the agreement surrendered Lebanese sovereignty to Israeli demands and called for an end to what he termed American tutelage over key Lebanese sectors.

The positions of the government and Hezbollah appear irreconcilable: the state views disarmament as a commitment, while Hezbollah, whose identity and military role rest on armed resistance, sees surrender as a threat to its rationale and operational capacity.

Israel’s continued military presence in Lebanon further complicates Beirut’s case, with analysts warning it risks perceptions of the government capitulating without receiving reciprocal concessions.

Despite disarmament pressure, Hezbollah has spent three months preparing for possible renewed hostilities, Reuters reported on Oct. 26, citing Lebanese security personnel. The Iran-backed group has rearmed using Iranian funding during the lull since June and has been restoring command-and-control structures disrupted in prior battles.

Hezbollah’s media office denies that its systems have broken down, arguing that Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory legitimizes resistance.

Policy expert Hussein Chokr based in Beirut says Lebanon’s predicament reflects internal divisions and its limited ability to shape regional events beyond its borders.

“No actor in Lebanon possesses the influence needed to insulate the country from the broader regional reality,” Chokr told Arab News. Lebanon’s geography and exposure to rivalries prevent it from standing apart from the conflict.

Even dialogue between the government and Hezbollah would confront Israel’s determination to maintain a presence in southern Lebanon, Chokr notes. That presence reinforces Hezbollah supporters’ case that the state cannot protect them and diplomacy has failed to secure withdrawal.

The situation creates a dangerous contradiction: pursuing disarmament without an Israeli withdrawal or Hezbollah agreement could provoke confrontation with the group and its supporters.

The continuing stalemate threatens to erode confidence in the Lebanese state without resolving the security concerns of either side. Another war would deal a hard blow to a country already struggling to stabilize its economy and institutions.

“Lebanon is in the midst of a political, security and economic storm, struggling to achieve the bare minimum of stability needed to prevent an explosion, nothing more than that,” Chokr said.

Itani warned that renewed fighting would push recovery further out of reach by weakening economic growth, straining infrastructure as people flee, and undermining prospects for international financial agreements.

“An international financial deal is of course less likely if the government is overwhelmed by war and confidence in it is low,” he said.

The consequences of renewed conflict could extend beyond economic damage. “The real danger of another war is not primarily economic; it is political and social,” Chokr said.

In a country already deeply divided over Hezbollah’s military role, he warned, renewed conflict could threaten social cohesion and internal security.

Some domestic actors may seek to exploit war as an opportunity to use force against Hezbollah, potentially turning an already profound political crisis into an internal security confrontation, Chokr added.

Source link