The unhappy truth is that despite Hezbollah having received a military thrashing at the hands of the IDF, the organization still possesses considerable political power within Lebanon.
On February 7, during a visit to Beirut, US deputy Middle East envoy Morgan Ortagus, highlighting concerns over the group’s influence and activities, stated that the US had set a “red line” against Hezbollah’s inclusion in Lebanon’s forthcoming government. Speaking after a meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, she emphasized the US view that Hezbollah should not be part of the new administration in any form.
Aoun, beset by intense internal political pressure, simply ignored the US’s wishes. The next day Lebanon’s prime minister, Nawaf Salam, announced a 24-member cabinet that indeed includes representatives from the political alliance known as the “Shi’ite duo” – that is Hezbollah and its ally, the Amal movement. Together, they have secured four ministerial portfolios in the new government, and are negotiating for a potential fifth.
According to the terms of the November 2024 Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire agreement, the IDF was required to have withdrawn completely from southern Lebanon by January 26. But by then Hezbollah forces were to have moved out of the region between the Litani River and the so-called Blue Line – the boundary between Lebanon and Israel – and been replaced by the Lebanese army.
Achieving this desirable state of affairs, an objective first set out in UN Resolution 1701 in 2006, has been frustrated for nearly 20 years by a combination of Hezbollah’s growing dominance within Lebanon, and the weakness of successive Lebanese governments in countering it. Hezbollah has continued to operate in the region, maintaining weapons stockpiles and military infrastructure.
Now, while the Lebanese army has made significant strides in deploying south of the Litani River, Hezbollah still has not fully withdrawn from the area. This led Israel to request an extension to the agreed withdrawal deadline.
The ceasefire agreement is overseen by a supervisory committee under the chairmanship of the US, additionally composed of representatives from the UK, France, and Germany. This committee is responsible for monitoring compliance and assisting in the enforcement of the agreement’s terms.
Acceding to Israel’s request, the committee agreed to extend the IDF withdrawal deadline to February 18. A few days before the deadline, given Hezbollah’s continued military presence south of the Litani, Israel asked to remain in five posts in the south for a further 10 days.
Shortly afterward, KAN reported that the US, without specifying a new deadline, had granted Israeli troops permission to stay “in several locations” in Lebanon beyond February 18.
MEANWHILE, IT seems that France’s primary concern is to ensure that Israeli forces quit Lebanon as soon as possible. On February 13, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced a proposal that would involve UN peacekeepers replacing Israeli forces at key points, to ensure that the IDF leaves Lebanon by the deadline.
“It is now up to us,” said Barrrot, “to convince the Israelis that this solution is likely to allow a complete and final withdrawal.”
Confidence in UNIFIL at a low point
But Israel’s confidence in the UN’s peacekeeping force (UNIFIL) is at a low ebb after 47 years of its total inability to control Hezbollah. Israel cannot endorse a situation that leaves Hezbollah forces still controlling areas of south Lebanon, and in a position to recommence its bombardment of northern Israel. This would simply perpetuate the situation that brought Israeli forces over the border in the first place.
It is bad enough that Hezbollah has reasserted its political power within Lebanon’s government but it is demanding a return to its blatant and malign control over Beirut’s Rafic Hariri airport. For a long period, Hezbollah personnel treated the airport like a private domain.
The organization was accused of having operatives embedded within airport security and customs, allowing them to oversee and control the movement of goods and personnel. Hezbollah ignored continual allegations of corruption and security risks, and was able to smuggle weapons, drugs, and cash through the airport at will, bypassing official customs inspections.
Hezbollah is in desperate need of Iranian weapons to restock its depleted military supplies. On February 14, Israel informed the Lebanese government that Iran was about to dispatch a civil aircraft to Beirut loaded with military equipment and weaponry. In an effort to assert its authority, the Lebanese government barred that flight from landing in Beirut and imposed a ban on the import of Iranian military equipment and supplies.
In response, in an overt challenge to the government, Hezbollah began organizing scenes of public disorder in Beirut. On February 15, Reuters reported that the Lebanese army used tear gas to disperse Hezbollah supporters protesting at Beirut airport.
In response to the blocked flight, Iran barred Lebanese planes from repatriating citizens stranded in Iran, escalating tensions between the two countries. Iranian officials have called for constructive talks with Lebanon to resolve the situation, while also condemning alleged Israeli threats against an Iranian passenger plane as violations of international law.
Hezbollah appears to retain significant military and political power in Lebanon, and the dispersed Israeli inhabitants of the Israel-Lebanon border region are still unable to return to their homes. In December 2024, the Israeli government extended the evacuation period for the approximately 60,000 northern residents by an additional three months.
The Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire in December 2024 led to some cautious optimism among the citizens of the North; some, particularly from communities like Kibbutz Manara and Metulla, made the return journey. Unfortunately, many found their properties extensively damaged or destroyed. Some reconstruction has started, but it is expected to take years and at a great cost. Rebuilding Kibbutz Manara alone is estimated to cost at least NIS 150 million (approximately $40 million)
Many of the evacuated families, fearing a renewal of the violence, are reluctant to return home. Surveys indicate that nearly half of the displaced families are reluctant to go back under the current circumstances.
With the fears and concerns of the displaced inhabitants of the North in mind, Israel is certainly right to exercise the utmost caution before deciding it is safe to leave Lebanon for good.
The writer is the Middle East correspondent for Eurasia Review. His latest book is Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020. Follow him at www.a-mid-east-journal.blogspot.com.