Hizbullah’s Resilience: A Strategic Thorn In US-Israeli Calculations

Empowering Weak & Oppressed

Tahir Mahmoud

Sha'ban 02, 1446 2025-02-01

News & Analysis

by Tahir Mahmoud (News & Analysis, Crescent International Vol. 54, No. 12, Sha'ban, 1446)

Hizbullah launched a major military operation against the zionist entity on November 24, 2024, firing 250 rockets into occupied Palestine. Three days later, the Israeli regime signed a truce with Hizbullah under terms resembling the ceasefire agreement that ended the 2006 war—a conflict widely regarded as a loss for Israel.

Since November 27, pro-Israeli propaganda has sought to recast the truce as a triumph over Hizbullah. Even the most ardent supporters of Israel’s narrative, however, struggle to convince people that Hizbullah has been rendered ineffective.

Hizbullah remains a formidable force, both militarily and politically. In Lebanon, it continues to exercise considerable power and remains the country’s most influential socio-political player.

Closer examination of the narratives being peddled by Israel and the US reveals a broader strategy. These efforts appear aimed at framing Hizbullah as an impediment to Lebanese state sovereignty.

The propaganda seeks to provoke tensions between Hizbullah and Lebanese state institutions, with the ultimate goal of triggering an internal conflict.

The American and Israeli calculus seems clear: by applying periodic military pressure on Hizbullah and fostering narratives that pit it against Lebanon’s army and political structures, they hope to ignite violent clashes inside Lebanon.

This would create an opportunity for Israel to justify renewed airstrikes on Lebanon while encouraging Israel’s takfiri proxies from Syria to join the assault on Hizbullah. This scenario represents an optimal outcome for Israel, as it could weaken Hizbullah without a direct and sustained confrontation.

Furthermore, such a conflict would shift the burden of containment to Lebanese institutions, potentially fracturing the country’s unity and opening avenues for external intervention.

Implications of US-Israeli Strategy

At first glance, the US-Israeli strategy to weaken Hizbullah and provoke internal conflict in Lebanon might appear achievable. However, a closer analysis reveals several critical weaknesses that undermine the viability of this plan.

The first strategic blind spot lies in Hizbullah’s deeply rooted connection to its constituency. Unlike other groups in the region, Hizbullah is not merely a political or military organization; it represents a transnational movement with ties to regional communities that regard it as essential to their existential values.

At the local Lebanese scene, Hizbullah’s supporters view it as indispensable for their physical, economic, and political survival. This enduring relationship ensures a wellspring of organic grassroots support, which grants Hizbullah remarkable political stamina. It is a key factor that allows the organization to outlast rivals, both domestic and foreign, even in the face of sustained pressure.

The second weakness in the US-Israeli plan stems from a miscalculation about Hizbullah’s organizational structure. Over the past four decades, Hizbullah has evolved into more than a military movement; it has established a state-like system that spans multiple domains.

In contrast to movements in other Arab countries—Egypt, Bahrain, Morocco, and Jordan—that lacked institutional frameworks to withstand US-backed regime pressure, Hizbullah has developed robust mechanisms to counteract state forces.

These mechanisms encompass military, economic, and social structures that enable it to operate independently of Lebanon’s central government. This autonomy allows Hizbullah to effectively challenge any entity that seeks to undermine its position.

These strategic blind spots highlight the significant hurdles facing any effort to weaken Hizbullah. Grassroots loyalty provides it with a resilient support base, while its quasi-state infrastructure ensures that it can sustain prolonged periods of conflict or political isolation.

For Israel and the US, these factors complicate attempts to decisively neutralize Hizbullah.

Moreover, any direct confrontation risks bolstering Hizbullah’s narrative as a defender of Lebanon’s sovereignty, potentially rallying further support domestically and internationally.

What Lies Ahead for Hizbullah?

The question is: what direction will Hizbullah take in the aftermath of its recent confrontation with Israel and its western backers? The intelligence setbacks the movement experienced during this phase of the regional conflict suggest that Hizbullah is likely to recalibrate its strategies, emphasizing increased compartmentalization, compactness, and specialization across all domains—political, economic, social, and military.

The political domain is expected to take center stage in Hizbullah’s recalibrated strategy. The movement will likely intensify efforts to integrate more deeply into Lebanese state institutions.

The rationale is clear: despite Hizbullah’s military strength and grassroots support, the recent conflict highlighted the indispensability of state infrastructure—both physical and institutional—in sustaining a full-scale confrontation against state actors.

From Hizbullah’s perspective, embedding itself within Lebanon’s political apparatus serves multiple purposes.

It provides a shield against the economic and political machinations of Israel and the United States while solidifying the movement’s position as an indispensable actor in Lebanese governance.

Predictably, Israel and its allies will seek to spin Hizbullah’s political focus as evidence of its “domestication” or weakening. However, for Hizbullah, this shift represents a pragmatic move to ensure its long-term survival and adaptability.

Far from signaling retreat, the strategy reflects the group’s long game—leveraging state resources and infrastructure to bolster its ability to withstand external pressures.

Challenges Ahead: Provocations and Narrative Battles

Hizbullah’s adversaries are unlikely to sit idle. Efforts to provoke the group into low-scale conflict, particularly through Israel’s proxies in Syria, will likely intensify. Such provocations aim to undermine Hizbullah’s focus on internal political consolidation and drag it into a protracted series of skirmishes, draining its resources and diverting its attention.

Hizbullah’s history demonstrates a strategic patience that prioritizes long-term resilience over short-term gains.

By concentrating on internal political matters, the group is positioning itself to counteract external threats while ensuring its ability to endure and adapt.

This approach reflects a calculated response to the evolving regional landscape and underscores Hizbullah’s commitment to securing its place as a central actor in Lebanon’s political and military spheres.

Trump’s Ignorance and the “Madman Theory”

One of the most unpredictable factors in the ongoing regional developments is Donald Trump’s well-documented ignorance—an attribute that his supporters attempt to rebrand as the “Madman Theory.” This reframing aims to lend an air of strategic unpredictability to Trump’s often erratic policy decisions.

Washington is expected to leverage Trump’s personality as a tool of psychological warfare, presenting it as evidence of his willingness to escalate conflicts to the brink of all-out war against the Axis of Resistance.

However, this tactic is fraught with risks, as it could prompt the Axis—or one of its constituent members—to call Trump’s bluff, exposing the limits of the so-called Madman Theory.

Unique Moment for the Axis of Resistance

From a realpolitik perspective, Trump’s presidency may represent a uniquely advantageous moment for the Axis of Resistance to confront the United States head-on, albeit not necessarily through military means.

The Axis of Resistance finds itself in a historically favorable position as the American political system, under Trump, has devolved from a state-driven apparatus into a personality-centric oligarchy. This regression undermines the US’s ability to formulate coherent and effective strategic policies.

Additionally, under Trump’s leadership, the US is increasingly perceived as an isolated and declining empire, despised not only by its global competitors but also by traditional allies. This isolation will likely deepen if the US and Russia reach an agreement on the war in Ukraine, further eroding American global influence and prestige.

Irony in Adversity: Internal Divisions in Israel and the US

Ironically, some of the Axis of Resistance’s most valuable assets are found among its staunchest enemies in Israel and the United States.

In Israel, the Haredim’s societal and political dynamics contribute to internal divisions, weakening the state from within.

In the US, Trump’s MAGA movement similarly acts as a divisive force, draining American societal and political stamina.

Strategic Calculus in Favor of the Resistance

Trump’s unpredictability, marketed as strategic brilliance, is likely to serve as a liability for the US and its allies.

The Axis of Resistance is well-positioned to exploit the fractured political landscapes of both the US and Israel.

The intersection of domestic instability and declining global influence places the strategic calculus firmly in the Resistance’s favor, underscoring the profound and unintended consequences of Trump’s approach to governance.