The Hezbollah angle: Will Lebanon strikes derail the ceasefire?

The US-Iran ceasefire is being undermined by events on the ground. Within hours of the agreement, Israel launched its largest coordinated assault on Hezbollah in years, striking more than 100 targets across Lebanon and killing over 250 people. The escalation intensified further. Israel said it had killed the group’s leader Naim Qassem's nephew and personal advisor, a potentially decisive blow to the Iran-backed militia. Hezbollah, which had briefly paused attacks after the ceasefire announcement, resumed rocket fire into northern Israel.

The diplomatic fallout has been immediate. Iran has warned that Israeli strikes render negotiations meaningless and has taken retaliatory steps by disrupting oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Pakistan is preparing to host US–Iran talks in Islamabad on Saturday even as uncertainty grows over Iran’s participation after conflicting signals from its diplomats.

A ceasefire meant to pause a regional war is unfolding alongside an intense escalation, raising questions about whether the truce has any real substance.


Why Israel is intensifying strikes on Hezbollah now

Israel’s continued bombardment of Hezbollah is best understood not as a new strategy but sharpening of an existing one, shaped by long-term conflict dynamics as well as immediate political and military incentives.

At the operational level, Israel is pursuing a decisive degradation campaign. The scale, speed and targeting pattern of the April 8–9 Lebanon strikes point to an effort to dismantle Hezbollah’s leadership, missile infrastructure and command networks in one concentrated push. The killing of top leaders fits into a long-standing Israeli doctrine of decapitation strikes to disrupt adversaries structurally.

Also Read | Ceasefire in the Iran war teeters in the face of disagreements over Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz

But the deeper explanation lies in the political and strategic context. The ceasefire is seen within Israel as a setback for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as it seems to have sidelined Israel from core negotiations. This reduces Israel’s incentive to preserve the ceasefire. If the ceasefire stops the conflict without delivering definite outcomes for Israel, it harms Netanyahu's reputation. So Israeli want to exploit a narrow window left before the talks in Pakistan permanently stop all conflict.

With internal criticism on Israel mounting and elections scheduled later this year, Netanyahu needs a definite military victory over Hezbollah. When the Iran front has frozen after the ceasefire, he can still make definite gains in Lebanon.

There is also a structural dimension rooted in decades of conflict. Israel and Hezbollah have fought repeated wars -- in 1982, 2006, and in cycles since then -- but none of these succeeded in eliminating the group. Hezbollah emerged stronger after earlier confrontations, embedding itself deeply within Lebanon’s political and social fabric while retaining significant military capability, almost equal to the defence force of a small state.

This history informs Israel’s current approach. Rather than temporary deterrence, Israeli policy now appears aimed at permanently altering the security environment along its northern border.

Also Read |A toll for using Hormuz would be a 'dangerous precedent', UN's ship agency says

Plans to push Hezbollah north of the Litani river and create a buffer zone reflect a shift toward territorial and strategic reconfiguration, not just random retaliation. Israeli officials have indicated this is part of a longer-term security doctrine, with the aim of controlling territory up to the Litani and preventing Hezbollah from re-establishing a presence close to the border. Israeli forces have already established forward defensive lines inside southern Lebanon, combining sustained airstrikes with limited ground incursions to clear areas near the frontier and push Hezbollah fighters, especially its elite Radwan units, farther north. The aim is to reduce the threat of cross-border raids, anti-tank missile attacks and rocket fire on northern Israeli communities. Israel appears to be trying to create a depopulated, militarily controlled belt reminiscent of its pre-2000 security zone in southern Lebanon.

Finally, the timing of the ceasefire itself creates an opportunity. With Iran diplomatically engaged and potentially constrained in the short term, Hezbollah is relatively exposed. This allows Israel to escalate in Lebanon without the risk of direct response from Iran.

All these factors explain why Israel is intensifying its Lebanon campaign even after the ceasefire.

Will Lebanon strikes derail the ceasefire and Pakistan talks?

The viability of the ceasefire now hinges on whether these parallel tracks of diplomacy and escalation can coexist even temporarily. Iran’s position suggests they may not. Iranian leaders have openly criticised the process, arguing that Israeli strikes on Lebanon violate the spirit of the ceasefire and undermine trust. Tehran has warned that continued attacks make negotiations meaningless, indicating that its participation in talks could be conditional.

This dissatisfaction is already affecting the diplomatic track. While Pakistan is preparing to host talks in Islamabad, uncertainty has crept in. An Iranian ambassador’s deletion of a social media post indicating that Iranian leaders would attend has raised questions about whether Iran is reconsidering its participation in Saturday talks.

The US, however, is taking a sharply different line. Vice-President JD Vance has described the inclusion of Lebanon in the ceasefire as a misunderstanding and insisted that Washington never agreed to constrain Israeli operations there. He has also warned that it would be “dumb” for Iran to walk away from talks over strikes in Lebanon, indicating that the US wants to separate the ceasefire and negotiations from Israel's Lebanon campaign.

This divergence goes to the heart of the problem. The US views the ceasefire as a narrowly defined arrangement to prevent direct US–Iran escalation. Iran views it as a broader regional de-escalation that must include Hezbollah.

On the ground, meanwhile, events are moving faster than diplomacy. Hezbollah has resumed attacks, Israel continues its strikes and Iran is not opening up the Hormuz. The most plausible outcome of the current situation may not be an immediate collapse of talks but a weakening of their credibility. Negotiations in Islamabad may still go ahead -- under conditions of deep mistrust and ongoing violence -- which can make them less fruitful than expected.