|
As Lebanese President Joseph Aoun moves to neutralize Hezbollah as a military force as part of his efforts to rebuild that war-torn country, the United States and Israel must offer their support. But they need to do so artfully without triggering a backlash that would undercut Aoun and, with him, prospects for change.
The opportunity to fully defang Hezbollah—which, if not taken, may not arise again for some time—comes in the aftermath of the terror group’s disastrous decision to mount a second front against Israel in the wake of Hamas’ October 7, 2023 slaughter of 1,200 Israelis. Israel’s counterattack against Hezbollah last fall decapitated its leadership, leaving the group largely rudderless and significantly weakened.
The question now is whether Aoun’s government will follow through or, instead, give Hezbollah the room to reconstitute itself as a dangerous and lethal force. The stakes could hardly be higher for Lebanon and the region.
Hezbollah, long considered the Middle East’s most powerful non-state actor, is both a militia and a political party. In the areas of Lebanon that it controls as a “state within a state,” Hezbollah runs schools, hospitals, and other social institutions.
Until last September, it was the most powerful member of Iran’s “axis of resistance,” a network of groups that helps Tehran wield asymmetric influence across the region and beyond.
But times have changed dramatically for both Iran and Hezbollah, making Aoun’s move against the latter a major opportunity for Washington, Jerusalem, and regional stability.
Over the last 20 months, Iran proved to be a paper tiger. Its first direct military exchanges with Israel, in April and October of 2024, left the Jewish state largely unscathed and the Islamic Republic significantly worse for wear. Meanwhile, Tehran’s close ally and fellow terror sponsor in Syria (Bashar al-Assad) was unexpectedly toppled in December. At the same time, Israel has successfully destroyed Hamas’ capacity to launch another serious attack from Gaza.
Aoun, a “no-nonsense” 61-year-old former commander-in-chief of Lebanon’s armed forces who was elected president by the nation’s parliament in January, is trying to take advantage of this state of affairs. He has pledged to disarm Hezbollah and establish a “state monopoly on arms.” If he succeeds, he will deliver another serious body blow to Iran and its regional network.
Lebanon’s president is clearly making some progress. The army, which was much weaker than Hezbollah not that long ago, is now dismantling hundreds of the group’s “military positions and arms depots” near Lebanon’s border with Israel. Hundreds of Hezbollah commanders and their families reportedly have left for South America. In a clear effort to undercut Hezbollah’s political influence, the army is taking down signs and banners with images of Hezbollah’s leaders along Beirut’s main roads and hanging fresh posters that proclaim a “new era.”
Municipal elections in May offered additional hints of Hezbollah’s decline. While Hezbollah-affiliated candidates ran unopposed or won by large margins in some areas, overall turnout was low, suggesting growing “disenchantment” with the group among the populace. That is understandable; those who lost homes and businesses to Israeli airstrikes invariably resent the destruction that Hezbollah triggered after October 7.
But Aoun seems reluctant to push too hard. With Hezbollah rejecting calls to disarm, he has neither pressed the point with its leaders nor conditioned government aid for Hezbollah-controlled areas on the group laying down its weapons. He also continues to appoint Hezbollah-affiliated individuals to key positions.
That’s where Washington and Jerusalem come in. Both want Hezbollah disarmed, and, for Aoun, they have carrots to offer and sticks to wield.
Israel is stepping up military operations against Hezbollah, most recently targeting dozens of its drone production and storage facilities, not only in southern Lebanon but in the suburbs of Beirut.
In its efforts to prevent Hezbollah’s revival, however, Israel should be careful not to incite enough resentment among Lebanon’s people to rally support for what is now a besieged terrorist group. That’s especially important because Lebanon’s leaders, whatever their political differences, are united in their calls for Israel to cease its operations in their country.
Washington, meanwhile, is pressing Beirut to disarm Hezbollah completely and promising to withhold U.S. and international aid until it does. That’s fine, but U.S. officials could up the ante. They could, for instance, push for a deadline for total disarmament and, along with the promise of financial aid, offer equipment and logistical assistance to help Lebanon’s army do the job.
Looking ahead, the ball is largely in Aoun’s court. For one thing, the more he disarms Hezbollah, the less Israel will feel compelled to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities on its own.
Additionally, Aoun could aim even higher. If he is serious about ushering in a “new era” for his nation, he could push to change longstanding laws that prohibit direct contact between the people of Lebanon and those of Israel—paving the way for less tension and more prosperity on both sides of their common border.
Lawrence J. Haas is a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and the author of, among other books, Harry and Arthur: Truman, Vandenberg, and the Partnership That Created the Free World.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/lebanons-future-hinges-on-ending-hezbollah
|
