Ceasefire under siege: What exactly is Israel's problem with Lebanon?

US Vice President JD Vance has departed for Pakistan where he will hold talks with Iran on Saturday even as Israel's continued strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon, even after the announcement of ceasefire, cast a shadow on talks. Israel continues to bombard Lebanon while Hezbollah too is firing rockets at Israel.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has said negotiations with the US cannot begin until two key conditions are met. “Two of the measures mutually agreed upon between the parties have yet to be implemented: a ceasefire in Lebanon and the release of Iran’s blocked assets prior to the commencement of negotiations,” wrote Ghalibaf in a post on X. “These two matters must be fulfilled before negotiations begin.”

However, it is widely expected that Iran will participate in Saturday talks with the US.


The Middle East conflict has once again placed Lebanon at the centre of a volatile regional equation. The scale and timing of the latest escalation suggest more than a routine flare-up. It reflects a deeper, decades-long confrontation rooted in invasion, resistance and regional rivalry. At its core lies a unique reality -- Hezbollah is not just an adversary for Israel but also an integral part of the Lebanese state.

Origins of Israel-Hezbollah conflict

The roots of Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah trace back to its 1982 invasion of Lebanon, aimed at expelling the Palestine Liberation Organization. While Israel weakened the PLO, the prolonged occupation of southern Lebanon created fertile ground for a new force. Backed by Iran, Hezbollah emerged in the mid-1980s as a Shia Islamist movement committed to resisting Israeli presence.

Through the 1980s and 1990s, Hezbollah waged a campaign of guerrilla warfare against Israeli troops and their local ally, the South Lebanon Army. Israel’s eventual withdrawal in 2000 was widely seen as a defining moment that elevated Hezbollah’s status across the region. Yet unresolved disputes ensured that conflict continued.

The confrontation escalated dramatically in 2006, when a cross-border raid by Hezbollah triggered a full-scale war. Despite heavy destruction in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s survival reinforced its image as a potent non-state force. In the years that followed, it significantly expanded its missile arsenal and military sophistication, transforming into a hybrid actor capable of challenging Israel directly.

Also Read | Why Israel is still bombing Lebanon despite ceasefire and truce talks with Iran in Pakistan

From militia to political power

What makes Hezbollah distinct is not just its military capability but its deep integration into Lebanese society and politics. Unlike other militias that disarmed after the civil war, Hezbollah retained its weapons under the justification of resisting Israel. Simultaneously, it entered electoral politics, winning parliamentary seats and securing positions in successive governments.

Over time, Hezbollah built a vast social infrastructure, providing healthcare, education and reconstruction services, particularly within Lebanon’s Shia community. This dual role as both welfare provider and armed movement allowed it to entrench itself as a legitimate political force.

The result is a dual system often described in Western policy circles as a “state within a state.” Hezbollah participates in government yet maintains independent military and security structures beyond state control. This has created a persistent tension. Lebanon formally claims sovereignty over decisions of war and peace, but in practice Hezbollah has repeatedly acted on its own strategic aims.

Recent developments suggest this tension is intensifying. The Lebanese government has increasingly indicated that Hezbollah’s unilateral military actions are illegitimate, asserting that only the state should control armed force. Yet it lacks the capacity and political unity to enforce this position. Hezbollah’s influence within parliament and its backing from Iran make any direct confrontation internally destabilising.



Also Read | Can the US and Iran bridge deep divides in talks?

Gaza war and the expanding frontline

The current phase of conflict is inseparable from the fallout of the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza. Hezbollah aligned itself with what Iran calls the “axis of resistance,” opening a northern front against Israel in support of Hamas.

Initially, this took the form of measured cross-border strikes, designed to pressure Israel without triggering full-scale war. However, over time, the exchanges intensified. Hezbollah expanded its use of rockets and drones, while Israel increased the scale and depth of its retaliatory strikes inside Lebanon.

This transformed the conflict from a contained border skirmish into a broader regional confrontation. Hezbollah’s role in linking the Lebanon front to Gaza elevated its strategic importance for Iran, while simultaneously increasing the risks for Lebanon, which faces the consequences of escalation without full control over it.

The current escalation: Strategy and timing

The latest Israeli strikes across Lebanon mark a significant escalation in both scale and intent. The attacks, which have caused heavy casualties, appear to go beyond immediate retaliation. They reflect a broader strategy shaped by military calculations and diplomatic timing.

A key factor is Israel’s determination to degrade Hezbollah’s growing arsenal, particularly its stockpile of long-range and precision-guided missiles. Israeli operations have targeted command centres, infrastructure and senior operatives in an effort to weaken the group’s operational capacity.

Equally important is the timing. Despite a ceasefire framework emerging in parallel US-Iran diplomacy, Israel has made clear that Lebanon is not covered by such arrangements. The wave of strikes following the ceasefire announcement appears intended to maximise pressure on Hezbollah before any broader agreement limits Israeli military options.

By escalating sharply, Israel is not only targeting Hezbollah but also sending a message to Iran ahead of negotiations. The underlying objective is to reshape the strategic environment, potentially forcing stricter constraints on Hezbollah as part of any future settlement.

At a deeper level, Israel’s actions suggest an attempt to alter the long-standing status quo in Lebanon. By raising the costs of Hezbollah’s military posture, it may be seeking to compel the Lebanese state and international actors to confront the group’s autonomous armed role more directly.

Lebanon’s dilemma

Lebanon today is caught in a bind. Hezbollah is both a pillar of its political system and a source of its vulnerability. It commands significant domestic support and institutional power, yet its independent military actions repeatedly expose the country to devastating conflict.

The Lebanese government’s position reflects this dilemma. It has increasingly distanced itself from Hezbollah’s actions and called for state control over all arms, yet it lacks the means to enforce such authority. Any attempt to do so risks internal fragmentation in an already fragile state.

This unresolved contradiction lies at the heart of the current crisis. Israel’s military campaign is aimed not only at immediate security threats but also at this deeper imbalance. Meanwhile, Hezbollah continues to operate as a regional actor aligned with Iran, linking Lebanon’s fate to broader geopolitical struggles.

As US-Iran talks unfold, Lebanon remains the most volatile pressure point. The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has endured for over four decades because it is rooted in realities that no single war or ceasefire has resolved. Whether the present escalation leads to containment or a wider war will depend as much on regional diplomacy as on the fragile internal balance within Lebanon itself.