Lebanon enters talks with Israel but with no cards to play

Lebanon once more finds itself in the throes of conflict, yet its leaders seem to hold little power over the ongoing strife. During a recent meeting with President Joseph Aoun at Baabda Palace, a modernist structure perched atop a hill overlooking Beirut, I recalled the tense atmosphere of last August. Aoun, a retired military general, assumed office following a brutal war between Israel and Hezbollah, a militant group and political faction backed by Iran. At that time, Hezbollah had suffered significant losses and faced isolation within Lebanon. Aoun pledged to dismantle the group’s arsenal, aiming to bring an end to the cycle of violence.

The fragile ceasefire, brokered in November 2024, had momentarily halted the conflict. However, Israel’s persistent attacks on targets connected to Hezbollah continued, with near-daily strikes reported. In certain regions, the war never truly ceased. From my residence in eastern Beirut, I could occasionally detect the hum of Israeli drones patrolling the skies. For Hezbollah’s followers, the group represents a shield against Israeli aggression, which they view as a force determined to seize Lebanese territory. Critics, meanwhile, argue that Hezbollah prioritizes Iranian interests, prolonging wars that are not in Lebanon’s best interest.

Hezbollah, or the Party of God, was founded in the 1980s during Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. Initially supported by Iran, it was established as a resistance movement against the Israeli presence. The Taif Agreement of 1989, which concluded Lebanon’s civil war, required all militias to surrender their weapons and introduced a system of power-sharing among the country’s diverse sects. Yet Hezbollah retained its arms, framing itself as a defender of Lebanese sovereignty. Israel withdrew its forces from the region in 2000, but territorial disputes lingered. The UN Resolution 1701, enacted after the 2006 war, called for Hezbollah’s disarmament but remains unfulfilled.

Despite these challenges, President Aoun has championed a policy of “state monopoly on arms,” insisting that only the government should control weaponry. As part of the 2024 ceasefire deal, Hezbollah agreed to relocate its fighters and weapons from southern Lebanon, an area it had dominated for decades. However, the group’s secretary-general, Naim Qassem, has refused to consider a comprehensive disarmament plan. Aoun warned that forcing the issue without Hezbollah’s agreement could reignite hostilities. “We can’t let the country descend into another civil war,” he said during our August encounter.

With the US mediating a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, a meeting between ambassadors is set for later Tuesday in Washington. The talks aim to address the stalemate, but Lebanon’s government, lacking authority over Hezbollah, remains uncertain about its ability to achieve a lasting peace. The path forward is unclear, as both sides cling to their positions in a conflict that has tested the nation’s stability for years.

Hezbollah’s Dual Role

Hezbollah is more than a military force in Lebanon—it operates as a political party, a social movement, and a key player in governance. It provides essential services in areas where the state’s reach is limited, such as schools and hospitals. This multifaceted presence has made it Lebanon’s most influential group, even as it faces accusations of being a proxy for Iran.

“I was born an optimist,” Aoun remarked during our August meeting, highlighting his belief in resolving the conflict through dialogue.