Lebanon's political landscape fractured further following a 10-day ceasefire with Israel, revealing starkly opposed national visions. President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam pursue direct negotiations with Israel, while Hezbollah maintains its armed resistance to Israeli forces. This divergence exposes the country to sustained internal tensions, as noted by Lebanese researcher Qassem Qassir, who specializes in Islamist movements.
Despite the temporary cessation of hostilities announced on April 16, Israeli forces continued their operations across southern Lebanon. Hezbollah, in turn, maintained its retaliatory actions. Thirty-seven Israeli soldiers sustained injuries within 24 hours, and two lost their lives during this period.
Israeli troops established a "yellow line," designating it as a forward defensive perimeter. This zone stretches from the Bekaa Valley to the Mediterranean coast, extending even into Lebanese territorial waters. It encompasses approximately 55 towns and villages.
Within this Israeli-defined buffer zone, a systematic campaign of destruction is now underway. Over the weekend of April 18-19, the sound of controlled demolitions reverberated through southern Lebanon. Dozens of military and privately contracted bulldozers razed entire neighborhoods.
This climate of insecurity prompted both Hezbollah and the Lebanese army to advise residents, who had briefly returned after the ceasefire announcement, to evacuate once more after inspecting their properties. Roads heading north experienced heavy traffic as people left again. The ceasefire agreement, which the US State Department published, appears heavily weighted in Israel’s favor.
It mandated a 10-day halt to hostilities, commencing at midnight on April 16. The document explicitly states that Israel "shall preserve its right to take all necessary measures in self-defence, at any time, against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks." It further clarifies that this right "shall not be impeded by the cessation of hostilities." Lebanon’s right to self-defense receives no mention in the text. This absence marks a notable departure from the November 2024 agreement, which had included such provisions.
No formal document was presented to the Lebanese Council of Ministers for its review. Several sources in Beirut indicated that the country’s leadership was not informed of the agreement’s content, effectively receiving it as a fait accompli. The announcement generated substantial political backlash across Lebanon, with various rival factions attempting to claim credit for the ceasefire.
This political maneuvering underscores the deep divisions within the country’s power structures. Lebanon's official leadership, headed by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, has clearly chosen to align the nation with US policy. Their primary objective involves denying Iran—and by extension Hezbollah—any diplomatic or military recognition for the ceasefire.
This strategic decision aims to reposition Lebanon within the broader regional power dynamics, favoring Western alliances over the Iranian-backed axis. It is a calculated gamble. Iran, however, had explicitly stipulated a ceasefire in Lebanon as a prerequisite for re-engaging in negotiations with the United States in Islamabad.
Qassem Qassir, a Lebanese researcher specializing in Islamist movements, observed, "The resistance of Hezbollah to the Israeli invasion is probably one of the factors that accelerated the ceasefire." He further added, "Iran also played a role in halting the hostilities, even if the Lebanese government and the United States do not want to credit the Islamic Republic with this outcome."
US President Donald Trump himself announced the ceasefire and personally informed President Aoun in a phone call on April 16. This direct communication sought to bypass other actors, particularly Iran. Lebanese journalist and writer Sami Kleib stated, "The mere fact that Hezbollah accepted a ceasefire despite its reservations, and while some clauses of the agreement are unfavourable to it and benefit Israel, indicates that Iran had weight in the negotiations." The numbers on the shipping manifest tell the real story of influence here, not just public statements.
Despite the extensive damage—more than one million people displaced, nearly 5.8 percent of national territory occupied, and around 50 towns and villages systematically destroyed—Lebanon’s leadership has not altered its course. Instead, it has pressed forward, opting for direct negotiations with Israel. This approach simultaneously increases pressure on Hezbollah, aiming to weaken its internal standing.
That pressure intensified on March 2, just hours after the war began. The government, convened in an emergency session by Prime Minister Salam, declared Hezbollah’s military activities illegal. This action extends beyond a mere political reprimand.
It forms part of a broader campaign to strip Hezbollah of its status as a "resistance" force and as a "defender of Lebanon against Israeli aggression."
In the eyes of the authorities, Hezbollah’s armed wing now operates outside the law. This stands in contrast to the party's significant political presence. Hezbollah holds two ministerial posts, commands a substantial parliamentary bloc, and continues to enjoy widespread cross-sectarian support.
This legal declaration creates a direct conflict with the group's established political legitimacy. "Mr Aoun and Mr Salam have chosen to negotiate with Israel under fire because they believe it is the only option and that they lack leverage," Qassir explained. He recounted that the president reportedly told a recent visitor that, since Hezbollah proved unable to act against the Israelis, negotiation remained the sole path. "This policy has failed in the past," Qassir concluded. Past attempts yielded little.
The authorities invoke "constitutional and institutional legitimacy" to justify their position. However, a Hezbollah source informed Middle East Eye that he rejects this argument entirely. He described negotiations with Israel as "illegitimate," pointing out that "the Constitution and the Taif Agreement clearly consider Israel an enemy." Lebanese law prohibits "any direct contact with Israelis and any normalisation with the Israeli state."
According to the same Hezbollah source, "before entering into a negotiation process, the legal framework would first have to be amended." He added, "It is they—the leadership—who are in contradiction with the law, not Hezbollah." This highlights a fundamental disagreement over the very legal basis for engagement. The group contends its actions are permissible. Facing attempts to isolate it politically, Hezbollah emphasizes its "popular legitimacy." In the 2022 elections, its candidates secured 370,000 votes.
This made it one of the most popular political forces in the country. It also outperformed all Christian parties combined. At this stage, no serious indications suggest the Shia community, or Hezbollah’s supporters from other communities, have distanced themselves from the group.
Their base remains firm. The prospect of a split between Hezbollah and Parliament speaker Nabih Berri also appears improbable. The Amal movement continues its engagement in defending southern Lebanon.
Its rescue workers and paramedics have already incurred significant losses. This shared sacrifice binds the groups. Amid this tension, Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah has proposed holding a national referendum on negotiations and any potential peace agreement with Israel.
Rather than fostering national unity, the war has exacerbated internal divisions. This proposal further complicates the political landscape. In a televised address on April 17, President Aoun reaffirmed his position. "I am ready to go wherever necessary to liberate my land, protect my people and save my country," he stated, making clear he would not reconsider direct negotiations with Israel.
Without naming Hezbollah, he added: "To the reckless adventurers who gamble with Lebanon's fate and the lives of the Lebanese, I say: enough. Only the project of the state is the strongest, the most durable and the safest for all." He also thanked the US and Saudi Arabia for their role in securing the ceasefire, conspicuously omitting any mention of Iran. Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem responded the following day, rejecting what he termed "the humiliation of Lebanon through direct negotiations with the Zionist entity." He affirmed that his fighters would continue to respond to Israeli attacks.
Qassem outlined five key priorities: a complete halt to Israeli aggression across Lebanese territory, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied areas up to the border, the release of prisoners, the return of displaced residents, and reconstruction with international and Arab support under national oversight. The positions of the various actors appear irreconcilable. The option of using force to disarm Hezbollah is now openly discussed within political circles.
This represents a dangerous escalation. According to informed sources, Prime Minister Salam asked army chief General Rodolphe Haykal during the March 2 cabinet meeting to enforce the decision declaring Hezbollah’s military activities illegal. He argued that such a move would be inappropriate during wartime and beyond the army’s capacity.
A ministerial source described the exchange between Haykal and Salam as tense. Experts warn that any attempt to disarm Hezbollah by force could fracture the army itself, whose ranks are roughly 35 percent Shia. Meanwhile, the spectre of civil war is re-emerging in political discourse. "Fears of provocations and internal tensions are serious," Qassir warned. "There is information from European sources that certain parties are sending weapons into Lebanon to incite Lebanese factions to fight each other, as the Israelis have failed to break Hezbollah militarily." He added, "At this stage, the internal situation remains under the control of the Lebanese army.
However, things could deteriorate if the Lebanese government decides to use force against Hezbollah, as was hinted during the meeting in Washington between the Lebanese ambassador and her Israeli counterpart on 14 April."
Sami Kleib, however, stated that "no major actor currently appears willing to plunge the country back into civil war." He noted that such a scenario would require both internal alignment and substantial external backing—"two conditions that are not met at this stage." Wafic Safa, a top Hezbollah political and security official, also dismissed the prospect of civil war in an April 17 interview with the BBC. He stressed that "a civil war requires two sides. The one that could wage it—Hezbollah—does not want it." While the immediate scenario of a civil war appears unlikely, rising political and popular tensions are clearly palpable.
Why It Matters: This deepening chasm within Lebanon carries significant implications for regional stability and global trade. Lebanon, a vital transit point and a key player in the eastern Mediterranean, sees its internal divisions reverberate through broader geopolitical dynamics. The continued instability affects investor confidence and could disrupt potential trade routes, particularly those involving reconstruction efforts.
Follow the supply chain: Any sustained conflict or internal strife here impacts more than just local politics; it influences the flow of goods and capital across the wider Middle East. The numbers on the shipping manifest tell the real story of how political friction translates into economic uncertainty. Trade policy is foreign policy by other means, and Lebanon’s internal struggle directly reflects a larger regional contest for influence.
Key Takeaways: - Lebanon's official leadership, led by President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam, is pursuing direct negotiations with Israel, aligning with US policy. - Hezbollah rejects these negotiations as illegitimate and continues its armed resistance, emphasizing its popular support. - The recent ceasefire agreement, published by the US State Department, appears heavily skewed in Israel's favor and omits Lebanon's right to self-defense. - Attempts to disarm Hezbollah by force risk fracturing the Lebanese army and could escalate internal tensions. Looking ahead, the standoff is set to intensify, with a risk of sporadic incidents. Much will depend on the Lebanese army and security forces’ ability to contain these tensions, as Kleib observed.
A critical red line remains: whether the political leadership refrains from deploying the army against a segment of its own population. This decision will determine Lebanon’s immediate future and its place in the complex web of regional power struggles. Observers will watch closely for any shifts in military posture or further diplomatic overtures.
Key Takeaways
— - Lebanon's official leadership, led by President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam, is pursuing direct negotiations with Israel, aligning with US policy.
— - Hezbollah rejects these negotiations as illegitimate and continues its armed resistance, emphasizing its popular support.
— - The recent ceasefire agreement, published by the US State Department, appears heavily skewed in Israel's favor and omits Lebanon's right to self-defense.
— - Attempts to disarm Hezbollah by force risk fracturing the Lebanese army and could escalate internal tensions.
Source: Middle East Eye
