Hezbollah Will Never Choose Lebanon Over Iran – OpEd

By Mohamed Chebaro

Lebanon this week remembered the outbreak of its civil war 51 years ago.

If anything, April 13, 2026, ironically looked no different to the days of civil tension in the prelude to the breakdown of law and order among the Lebanese in 1975, between those who wanted to peel Lebanon away from regional discord and foreign agendas and those who wanted to see the country and its people used as cannon fodder.

Half a century has passed but the similarities are striking. Lebanon is again facing its demons and the curse of division, as the majority of its people want Hezbollah disarmed, while those who support the militia insist on fighting Israel in the name of protecting Gaza and, since Feb. 28, defending Iran. They want to help Tehran in its war of resistance against Israel and help protect Iran’s revolutionary doctrine and regime, which is being battered by the US and Israel.

It is feared the storm of civil strife is gathering again, as the government has taken the daring and historic step of negotiating directly with Israel. It seeks to end the conflict through a peace deal that preserves the country’s unity and territorial integrity, preventing Israel creating a security buffer zone in the south. But the Lebanese who support Hezbollah oppose these talks.

Lebanon’s fragile democracy has been struggling for more than three decades to find the means to disarm Hezbollah — a militia that has outgrown the state and its institutions with direct help from Iran and formerly from Syria. It is not an exaggeration to say that the country and its people often find themselves at the mercy of a game involving bigger powers.

For Hezbollah, an Iranian-created, funded, armed and led militia, choosing Lebanon over Iran is a tall order. The party and its supporters remain true to its original manifesto, which established the group’s presence in the country in the early 1980s and calls for the spread of Iran’s religious doctrine and revolution in the Arab and Muslim worlds, even if the group has repeatedly denied it. 

The French president’s special envoy to Lebanon, Jean-Yves Le Drian, a veteran statesman and diplomat, ought to know better than to say — as he did in an interview with Arab News last week — “Hezbollah must choose: either Lebanon or Iran. There is no alternative.” He is not the first and will not be the last to do so. But Hezbollah cannot change, as leopards never change their spots. Hezbollah’s mission, like its various leaders have often reminded those wanting to disarm them, is that the militia is part of the Wilayat Al-Faqih regime.

Since 1969, Lebanon has been a secondary theater in a regional confrontation that is beyond its control. Previously, it was used by the Arabs as a staging point for Palestinian resistance against Israel. And, under the tutelage of the Assad regime in Syria, it was for years a pawn in Damascus’ protracted confrontation with Israel and the West. Now, it is an extension of Iran’s revolution and a bridgehead for its confrontation with Arab countries and with Israel.

Le Drian explained in his interview that the continued fighting risks trapping the country in an external confrontation that could jeopardize fundamental aspects of the Lebanese state. “What is at stake today is Lebanon’s integrity and sovereignty,” he said.

And that is the story of modern Lebanon: always in the eye of the storm in a turbulent Middle East, often by choice by the choice of one segment of its society or another.

Denouncing the Israeli attacks against Hezbollah, Le Drian clearly identified the role of the Iran-allied militia in stoking the crisis. He also agreed that the “disproportionate strikes” by Israel create a potential paradox, warning that rather than weakening Hezbollah, they might actually strengthen the group’s influence.

Like Le Drian, many in Lebanon believe that, despite the intensity of the current hostilities, the country today has a unique opportunity to forge a path to peace. They hope that the historic direct talks with Israeli authorities could bear fruit, as the many years of conflict have failed to bring peace to Israel or stability and prosperity to the region, including Lebanon. 

The challenge is how to encourage the splintered Lebanese loyalties to favor the welfare of their country and its current government, which is, for once, free from Syrian, Iranian or any other foreign patronage.

People have for years been calling on the Lebanese who support Hezbollah to choose the state over the militia and Lebanon over Iran, but to no avail. Though weakened by Israel’s 60-day war on it in 2024, the militia has, with the help of Iran, rearmed and reorganized after the decapitation of its leadership. The recent fighting in the south demonstrates that Hezbollah is still a potent force, despite suffering the loss of its supply lines through Iraq and Syria, which could undermine its ability to put up a long and protracted fight.

The Israeli ground incursion and creation of a security buffer zone could cost Lebanon 10 percent or more of its territory. But above all, it will cause the community that supports Hezbollah to harden its stance and call for further resistance, even if that means driving the country’s civil peace to the brink.

The costs imposed by Hezbollah’s war are too large for this small country and its sovereign government to stomach. Time and again, history has demonstrated that Hezbollah cannot metamorphose into a Lebanese political force only. It is far too integrated into Iran’s regional extensions, religious doctrine and proxy designs. Those who call on the Lebanese militia group to choose Lebanon over Iran are in for a long wait.

And those who ask the Lebanese government to disarm the militia by force clearly fail to grasp the precarious fabric of communities in the country and the constant threat a decision like this would have on its unity.

It is still possible the US-Israeli strikes will persuade Tehran to abandon its perpetual revolution. It is also possible Lebanon and Israel could strike a deal that can be called “peace.” Only then can Hezbollah’s raison d’etre maybe cease to exist and the nation can broker a deal to dismantle the militant group for good.

• Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist with more than 25 years of experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy.