What does the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire mean for Hezbollah?

The militia has been weakened, but Iran has already indicated that it will increase its support.

A man flashes a portrait of slain Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah in front of the rubble of a building at the site of an Israeli airstrike in Beirut's southern suburbs, on November 12. Picture: AFP

With the end of the war in Lebanon leaving Hezbollah weakened, politicians in the country - where the militia has long acted as a state within a state - hope that the government and army will finally be able to assert themselves.

But all eyes will be on what Iran, Hezbollah’s patron, has in store.

There have been calls from Hezbollah’s most vocal opponents, mainly the right-wing Christian Lebanese Forces party, for its disarmament and integration into the Lebanese military, which is now tasked with keeping the peace along Israel’s borders according to the ceasefire’s terms.

That view is widespread in a country that did not ask to be dragged by Hezbollah into a war that has left parts of the south devastated, and more than 3,000 people dead.

The destruction and debris on Beirut's southern suburb of Haret Hreik on November 27. Picture: AFP

Those calls are likely to increase now that the Israel bombardment has ended. While it lasted, it had only served to rally people around the militia.

But Lebanese politicians will remember the last time Hezbollah appeared weakened, after the 2006 war, which also ended with an agreement that called on the military to take up positions in southern Lebanon while the militia agreed to withdraw its heavy weaponry north of the Litani river, some 30km (19 miles) from the border.

Hezbollah faced off with its opponents and took over parts of Beirut in short-lived clashes that showed that, even when diminished by Israel, it was still the country’s superior fighting force. Iran doubled down on its support for the group and helped it to amass an even bigger arsenal.

This time may be different, however. Unlike in 2006, much of Hezbollah’s leadership has been killed, including its veteran chief Hassan Nasrallah, who had commanded the group since 1992.

Lebanon's late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in 2007. Picture: AFP

The damage to the south and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them Hezbollah’s core Shia constituents, will require much more in reconstruction aid than after the previous war, and that will be carried out by a government eager to assert itself.

“There are plenty of Lebanese who are unhappy that Hezbollah and Iran decided to launch this second front in the country, but the Lebanese leaders will move very slowly. These people have long memories, many of them are political dinosaurs,” said Firas Maksad, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute think tank.

It is in Hezbollah’s interest to co-operate with them and with the military. But talk of disarmament may prove premature - Iran has already indicated that it will increase its support for the group.

Fighters of the Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah attend the funeral of the group's top military commander Ibrahim Aqil in Beirut's southern suburbs on September 22. Picture: AFP

With Nasrallah gone, Hezbollah has no leader with the stature to assert the group’s independence from Iran as a political player in Lebanon. His replacement, Naim Qassem, is believed to have fled to Iran to avoid his predecessor’s fate.

“Nasrallah was a respected figure in Iran; he had a margin of manoeuvre to speak with Lebanese interlocutors,” said Michael Young, a senior editor at the Malcolm H Kerr Carnegie Middle East Centre in Beirut.

“But today if you’re dealing directly with Iran then the situation is very different. You can’t really discuss with Iran integrating Hezbollah’s weapons in the state.”

The Times