The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a focal point of Middle Eastern politics for decades, but recent escalations in Gaza and Lebanon highlight an alarming trend that threatens to destabilize the entire region. Under its current leadership, Israel’s role in the ongoing violence in Gaza is unmistakable, drawing widespread international condemnation.
The relentless airstrikes, ground incursions, and the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure have created a humanitarian crisis that now extends beyond Gaza into southern Lebanon. Israel’s war machine, emboldened by the hardline government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has exacerbated tensions on multiple fronts, with dire consequences for Palestinians and Lebanese alike.
Israel’s War in Gaza and Beyond
It is beyond question that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has entered a new, more destructive phase. What began as retaliatory strikes following Hamas’ surprise attack on October 7, 2023, has now spiraled into a full-scale war that shows no sign of abating. Gaza, already reeling from years of blockade and deprivation, has borne the brunt of Israel’s military might. Civilians are paying a heavy price, with thousands dead, tens of thousands injured, and hundreds of thousands displaced. Hospitals have been bombed, homes demolished, and basic services obliterated.
What is especially chilling is that Palestinians and the people of southern Lebanon have been warned that “the worst is yet to come.” Israel’s military leadership has signaled that this conflict is far from over, and the human toll is expected to rise significantly. The specter of further devastation looms large, particularly as Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon have intensified, drawing Hezbollah into the fray and escalating the conflict on a second front.
Hezbollah and Iran
While Israel’s actions in Gaza are inexcusable, it is equally important to recognize the divisive forces at play within Palestine and Lebanon, much of which can be traced back to Iran. Tehran’s strategic goal has long been to sow division and expand its influence across the region, a plan it has executed with ruthless efficiency. Hezbollah, Iran’s most significant ally in Lebanon, has played a pivotal role in this scheme, effectively alienating key Lebanese communities from the state and using them as a proxy force to challenge Lebanon’s sovereignty.
This manipulation dates back to the early 2000s when the extension of former Lebanese President Emile Lahoud’s term was imposed under the auspices of what was then called the “Syrian-Lebanese security regime.” At the time, many Lebanese viewed this regime as merely an extension of Syrian control. However, it was, in fact, an integral part of Iran’s broader project to establish regional hegemony, using Syria as a conduit and Hezbollah as its primary military tool in Lebanon.
Iran’s influence in Lebanon grew rapidly after the assassination of Rafic Hariri in 2005, an event that triggered seismic political shifts in the country. Hezbollah, which once positioned itself as a Lebanese resistance movement, evolved into a powerful paramilitary organization aligned more with Tehran’s regional ambitions than the interests of the Lebanese people.
Evolution of Hezbollah: From Resistance to Proxy Force
Hezbollah’s transformation is deeply intertwined with the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, which began in 1982 and lasted until 2000. During this period, Hezbollah gained popular support in Lebanon by positioning itself as a resistance movement dedicated to liberating occupied Lebanese territory. For many Lebanese, the group’s actions were justified by the Israeli presence, and Hezbollah was seen as a necessary force standing up to Israeli aggression. However, when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, the narrative began to shift.
The continuation of Hezbollah’s military activities after the Israeli withdrawal raised eyebrows. The group no longer had a clear raison d’être as a resistance force, yet it continued to stockpile weapons and expand its military capabilities. Many Lebanese began to see Hezbollah not as a defender of national sovereignty but as a tool of Iran, working to undermine the state and foment sectarian division. This perception was solidified during the 2006 Lebanon War, when Hezbollah’s actions drew Lebanon into a destructive conflict with Israel, resulting in widespread devastation and loss of life.
In the years since, Hezbollah has continued to amass power in Lebanon, becoming a state within a state. Its allegiance to Iran has become increasingly transparent, particularly as it expanded its operations into Syria, where Hezbollah fighters were instrumental in propping up the Assad regime during the Syrian Civil War. This marked a significant shift from its original mission of resisting Israeli occupation to becoming an enforcer of Iranian interests across the region.
Iran’s Project of Regional Hegemony
The Iranian regime has long sought to position itself as a dominant power in the Middle East, and its support for groups like Hezbollah is a key component of this strategy. Iran’s ultimate goal is to establish a network of proxy forces across the region, capable of exerting influence and destabilizing governments to further Tehran’s strategic objectives. This project has been marketed under the guise of “resistance,” a powerful slogan that resonates with many Arabs who have suffered under Israeli occupation and Western interference.
However, the reality of Iran’s ambitions is far more cynical. By aligning itself with causes that appear just—such as the liberation of Palestine—Iran has managed to garner popular support while simultaneously undermining the very states it claims to defend. In Lebanon, this has resulted in the erosion of state institutions and the deepening of sectarian divisions, leaving the country vulnerable to external manipulation.
The imposition of a second term for Emile Lahoud in 2004 was a key moment in this process. It was presented by pro-Syrian forces as a necessary move to protect Lebanon from external threats, particularly from Israel. However, this decision was merely a façade for Iran’s larger plan to control Lebanon through its proxies, using Hezbollah as a means to weaken the Lebanese state and consolidate power.
The assassination of Rafic Hariri in 2005, which was widely attributed to Syrian and Hezbollah operatives, further exposed the extent of Iran’s influence in Lebanon. The killing of Hariri, a major political figure who had opposed Syrian dominance, triggered massive protests and ultimately led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. However, this did not end Iran’s influence; rather, it allowed Hezbollah to step into the vacuum left by Syria, solidifying its control over the country’s political and military institutions.
Hezbollah’s 2008 Coup and Syrian Civil War
By 2008, Hezbollah had become so entrenched in Lebanon’s political system that it felt confident enough to turn its weapons against fellow Lebanese. In May of that year, following a government decision to dismantle Hezbollah’s telecommunications network, the group launched a violent takeover of Beirut, sparking fears of a renewed civil war. This marked a turning point in Hezbollah’s evolution from a resistance movement into an armed faction willing to use force to impose its will on the Lebanese people.
The situation became even more complex with the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011. Hezbollah, at the behest of Iran, became deeply involved in the conflict, sending thousands of fighters to support the Assad regime. This intervention further alienated Hezbollah from large segments of the Lebanese population, particularly Sunni Muslims, who sympathized with the Syrian opposition. The group’s involvement in the war also deepened Lebanon’s political and sectarian divides, making it even more difficult to resolve the country’s internal conflicts.
Sixth Station: “Al-Aqsa Flood” and its Fallout
The October 2023 “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation by Hamas against Israel has once again brought the regional dynamics into sharp focus. While the attack initially took Israel by surprise, its response has been brutal and overwhelming, targeting not only Gaza but also Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon. The destruction has been devastating, with thousands of Lebanese civilians displaced and Hezbollah’s military infrastructure severely damaged.
This latest escalation has exposed the fragility of Iran’s regional project. Despite its rhetoric of support for the Palestinian cause, Tehran has been reluctant to fully commit to a direct confrontation with Israel, instead opting for a more cautious approach. This has left Hezbollah and Hamas isolated, with their popular bases increasingly disillusioned by the failure of these groups to achieve meaningful victories against Israel.
In Tehran, the Iranian leadership has made contradictory statements, with some figures calling for continued resistance while others, like President Masoud Pezeshkian, have downplayed the enmity between Iran and the United States, hinting at a desire for rapprochement. This has led many to question the sincerity of Iran’s commitment to the Palestinian cause and its broader regional ambitions.
As the conflict drags on, it is becoming increasingly clear that Iran’s project of regional hegemony has come at a tremendous cost to the people of Palestine and Lebanon. Hezbollah and Hamas, once seen as defenders of their respective populations, are now viewed by many as pawns in a larger geopolitical game that has little to do with the welfare of ordinary people.
It is not too late for these groups to change course. Hamas can still return to its roots as a movement dedicated to the welfare of the Palestinian people, rather than serving as a proxy for foreign powers. Similarly, Hezbollah must recognize that its future lies in embracing the Lebanese state and working to build a unified, sovereign Lebanon, rather than pursuing Tehran’s ambitions at the expense of its own people. The only way to achieve lasting peace in the region is through genuine dialogue, reconciliation, and a commitment to the principles of sovereignty and self-determination for all people, free from external interference.
