Why Hezbollah's 'irrational' gambit against Israel makes sense

Hezbollah and Israel continue to trade blows in the worst escalation on the Lebanese-Israeli front since a 66-day war in late 2024. The renewed fighting has taken an especially heavy toll on Lebanon, with more than 500 people killed and nearly 700,000 more displaced as of Wednesday.

Israeli forces have advanced deeper into south Lebanon, as part of what Israeli officials describe as a plan to create a larger buffer zone in Lebanon against Hezbollah operations.

The latest round of escalation was sparked by a cross-border Hezbollah rocket and drone attack on March 2nd earlier this month on the Israeli port city of Haifa, making it the first such operation by the Lebanese Shiite movement since a ceasefire deal was reached in November 2024.

In a written statement, Hezbollah said the operation was in retaliation for the assassination of now former Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and to the ongoing Israeli attacks on Lebanon that have continued almost unabated since the ceasefire deal. Israel, meanwhile, has justified its attacks on the pretext of preventing Hezbollah from rebuilding its military capabilities, which were badly battered during the 2024 war.

Notably, Hezbollah’s written statement opened by citing the assassination of Khamenei, before referring to the Israeli attacks.

Hezbollah’s decision to take this course of action has reportedly infuriated the Lebanese government, which subsequently announced an unprecedented crackdown on the group.

"This necessitates the immediate prohibition of all of Hezbollah's security and military activities, considering them to be outside the law, and obliging it to hand over its weapons", declared Prime Minister Nawaf Salam following an emergency cabinet session.

In an unprecedented development, this measure received the support of ministers from the Shiite Amal movement led by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. Amal is Hezbollah’s closest ally in Lebanon; its support for the government’s decision has fueled speculation of an emerging rift between the two sides.

President Joseph Aoun has also come out strongly against the Lebanese Shiite movement, accusing it of prioritizing Iranian interests at the expense of Lebanon.

During a virtual meeting with senior European officials, Aoun slammed Hezbollah, saying it “places no value on Lebanon’s interest nor on the life of its people,” and that its actions were “for the sake of the calculations of the Iranian regime.”

Aoun proposed a plan according to which direct Lebanese-Israeli talks would be held. The plan stipulates that Israel would gradually withdraw from Lebanese territories and cease its attacks, and requests that the international community support equipping the army with the necessary capabilities to disarm Hezbollah, thereby leading to a Lebanon-Israel truce.

Aoun’s stance is particularly noteworthy given that he has often adopted a softer line towards Hezbollah compared to Prime Minister Salam. The Lebanese Shiite movement, by contrast, has struck a defiant note, pledging to continue its operations against Israel.

“We have no other option to preserve honor, pride and dignity than the option of resistance,” declared leader of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, Mohammad Raad, during a televised speech in which he emphasized that the group would not back down no matter the costs.

At first glance and given the balance of power, this stance appears to be ill-considered.

But Hezbollah’s decision to resume operations against Israel may not be as costly as it seems. Regarding its ties with Amal, media reports indicate that the latter’s vote in favor of the government’s decision was more about safeguarding Lebanese Shiite political interests than signaling a genuine rift between the two parties. According to these reports, Amal’s vote was a precaution to preserve Lebanese Shiite leadership should Hezbollah end up being destroyed.

A Hezbollah official told RS that ties with Amal are back on track, seemingly acknowledging that the decision to resume operations against Israel at this time had initially caused some friction between the two political allies.

“The relationship with Amal is very good and is back to what it was,” said the official who spoke to RS on the condition he not be identified.

An official from Amal meanwhile strongly denied any tensions between the two parties.

“There is no rift with Hezbollah, he insisted, without going into further detail. This comes as reports emerged of a meeting between Berri and former Hezbollah minister Mohammad Fneish, where the latter relayed a message that Hezbollah will continue to entrust Berri with the role of political interlocutor on its behalf.

For its part, the Lebanese army still appears reluctant to take action against Hezbollah out of fear that this could ignite civil strife.

Speaking during a meeting with Lebanese military officials, army commander Rodolphe Haykal underscored the importance of preserving national unity.

“The military institution is pursuing its utmost efforts to protect internal stability and national unity” he said, adding that the army “stands at equal distance from all Lebanese”

Hezbollah can also continue to rely on support from its Shiite base, notwithstanding the disproportionate suffering endured by Lebanese Shiites — who are about 31% of the total Lebanese population — as a result of the ongoing conflict.

A large segment of this popular base followed Khamenei as a religious “Marja” whose religious decrees are to be strictly adhered to. Therefore, it is likely that a not insignificant number of Shiites saw in his assassination an act of war against their faith that necessitates action.

It is also likely that the group can continue to count on ongoing Shiite support given the situation in post-Assad Syria. With the fall of the Assad dynasty, many Lebanese Shiites see in Hezbollah their most reliable protector against what they perceive to be an anti-Shiite Salafi Jihadi threat emanating from the new leadership in Damascus. Atrocities committed against minorities in post-Assad Syria have only reinforced these sentiments.

Not surprisingly then, Syria’s president Ahmad al-Sharaa voiced his support for Aoun’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah.

"We stand alongside Lebanese president Joseph Aoun in disarming Hezbollah,” stated al-Sharaa. Such statements are likely to further harden Lebanese Shiite support for Hezbollah.

Hezbollah’s decision to resume cross-border operations may therefore not be the irrational risky gambit some may claim it to be, especially given that the war against Iran poses an existential threat to the group itself.

In the midst of these developments, some in Washington appear to be promoting an even tougher approach against Hezbollah. According to Axios, there is now a bipartisan push in Washington to replace Haykal with someone more willing to confront the group.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has even gone so far as to urge President Trump to join Israel in the bombing campaign against Hezbollah.

From an American interest standpoint, these policy recommendations make even less sense than the decision to go to war against Iran.

While there is a case to be made that toppling the Islamic Republic serves American geopolitical interests given Tehran’s close ties with rival superpowers like China and Russia, no such geopolitical rationale exists in the case of Hezbollah and Lebanon.

By choosing to go after the Lebanese Shiite movement so vigorously in the absence of a clear geopolitical justification, Washington would further reinforce an already existing Shiite perception arising from Khamenei’s assassination; namely, that Washington is engaging in an anti-Shiite crusade.

This could have potentially devastating repercussions, not least the emergence of hard-core anti-American Shiism that could rival the anti-Americanism espoused by Salafi-Jihadi groups like ISIS and Al-Qaida.