Lebanon’s leaders must take on Hizbullah

More often than not, Lebanon is a cautionary tale. Poor governance, foreign meddling and catastrophic economic mismanagement have hollowed out the state. But the most destabilising force in the country has been Hizbullah, a fearsome militia backed by Iran. Lebanon’s government now has a chance to dislodge it. But it needs to act firmly, and fast.

Hizbullah, long the most heavily armed non-state actor in the world and the most powerful military force in Lebanon, has never looked weaker. Israel has killed many of its leaders and destroyed tens of thousands of the missiles it has pointed at northern Israel. Its patron is now battling for its own survival. Anger has grown among its Shia supporters in Lebanon at its failure to rebuild what Israel destroyed in the south of the country in 2024.

Since Israel and America began their most recent war in Iran, Hizbullah has again been attacking Israel. In response, Israel has launched a devastating series of air strikes which have killed over 950 people and displaced more than a million. Israel aims to finally smash Hizbullah. Instead, it risks reviving it. In contrast to Israel’s campaign in 2024, which many Lebanese recognised to be an attack on Hizbullah, the scale of this assault makes it look like an attack on Lebanon itself. A ground incursion may be next. Israel’s invasion in 1982 led to an 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon and the emergence of Hizbullah. Fighting a new wave of occupiers would help Hizbullah recover its grip.

Israel should pause and give Lebanon’s government and army a chance to act. For years, that would have been inconceivable. Generations of Lebanese politicians and generals have prevaricated, reluctant to take on a militia that outgunned and intimidated them. Israel’s leaders are currently split over whether to launch a large ground invasion. If the Lebanese government does not rise to the occasion, Israel may well conclude that it must re-establish deterrence itself, perhaps with a prolonged occupation of the south.

Lebanon’s leaders are making the right noises. Joseph Aoun, the president, has vowed to disarm the group. On March 2nd Nawaf Salam, the prime minister, declared “all Hizbullah’s security and military activities” to be illegal and told it to hand over its weapons to the state. Dismantling Hizbullah’s power will be neither easy nor quick. But the government could start by ejecting the Iranian ambassador and severing diplomatic ties with Iran. Many Iranian “diplomats” in Lebanon are, in fact, members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The government should arrest Iranian commanders leading Hizbullah’s fighters on the ground. It must also close Al-Qard Al-Hassan, its financial network, and make clear that reconstruction financing for the south of the country will be made available and handled by the state.

And it should enforce its own ban on Hizbullah’s military activity. Recently, armed Hizbullah supporters were arrested and then freed on bail of just $21. The army should take control of the routes and facilities used to move weapons and fighters. And Lebanon’s army should eventually aim to move into areas long dominated by Hizbullah.

Outsiders can help. Britain and France could share intelligence with Lebanon’s government; so could America. Their armies could train and equip the Lebanese armed forces and offer financial support to pay soldiers. But ultimately this is up to Lebanon’s leaders. If they move seriously against Hizbullah, they might at last break its grip on the state. If they hesitate yet again, Lebanon could face a destructive new occupation. ■