Hizbollah closes ranks as US scrambles to avert regional war

Iran’s threatened retaliation against Israel has prompted a frantic round of international diplomacy aimed at preventing all-out war.

Much of that push has been directed towards Tehran, but a senior US envoy travelled on Wednesday to Lebanon’s capital Beirut as part of attempts to prevent hostilities from escalating between Israel and another powerful foe: the militant movement Hizbollah.

Israel’s assassination of Hizbollah military chief Fuad Shukr in July, and the killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran hours later, sharply raised the stakes in ten months of conflict across the Israel-Lebanon border.

But Lebanon’s Hizbollah, one of the world’s most heavily armed non-state actors, has kept its own discussions about how to respond closely under wraps.

Analysts and people familiar with its thinking said the Iran-backed group wanted to keep its enemies on their toes and create leverage in the high-stakes diplomacy.

“Since [Shukr’s] death, everyone has tried to pass messages to Hizbollah,” said a person involved in the diplomacy, “but they hardly say anything in return. They’ve closed ranks.”

The group and its leader Hassan Nasrallah may be buying time to plot a response and co-ordinate with Iran.

Kassem Kassir, a Lebanese analyst close to the militant group, said Hizbollah faced a dilemma in “combining the inevitable and painful response with not heading into a large-scale war” that could draw in the US and Iran’s network of regional allies.

Hizbollah’s approach is also linked to a wider peace drive in the region. Washington, with Qatar and Egypt, is pushing for fresh talks in Doha or Cairo on Thursday, aiming to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas to end the Gaza war and secure the release of Israeli hostages.

That is deemed key to ending the regional hostilities that erupted after Hamas’s October 7 attack triggered the war in Gaza.

“There’s a political incentive for both Hizbollah and Iran to see a ceasefire through,” said David Wood, Lebanon analyst at the Crisis Group think-tank. “It would be something both parties would see as a huge victory.”

As well as Wednesday’s Beirut visit by US special envoy Amos Hochstein, in which he met with Lebanese officials, Brett McGurk, the White House’s top Middle East adviser, was due to visit Egypt and Qatar this week.

That comes after days of back-channel US messages passed to Iran and Hizbollah, urging them to show restraint.

Since the assassinations, however, Hizbollah has not been in a listening mood, said people involved in the diplomatic efforts.

For months before that, Hochstein had tried unsuccessfully to broker a deal between Hizbollah and Israel to halt hostilities that have killed dozens of civilians and led to hundreds of thousands being displaced on both sides of the border.

Hizbollah has repeatedly said it would not stop its attacks on Israel as long as fighting continues in Gaza.

A Hizbollah-affiliated newspaper recently accused Hochstein of bearing responsibility for the Israeli strike on Beirut that killed Shukr, in a sign of the challenges the US faces in pushing for a diplomatic solution.

Hizbollah, the dominant political and military force in Lebanon, also has domestic issues to consider. An all-out war with Israel would be devastating for a country already mired in a years-long political and economic crisis. A destructive conflict could fuel more of a backlash at home.

Iran and Hizbollah have been sceptical about the diplomatic efforts and sincerity of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but neither wants to be seen as scuppering the talks, Kassir said.

If the talks fail, however, “then all bets are off,” said the person involved in the diplomacy.

A key question is whether Hizbollah and Iran would launch a co-ordinated multi-front attack, including with other groups in the so-called axis of resistance of Iranian-backed militants.

“Clearly the most provocative would be a simultaneous response on all fronts,” said Wood.

“If the axis was trying to send the strongest possible message to Israel, that’s it. But that bears the greatest risk, because it would lead the US to be drawn into assisting Israel — it’s everyone’s nightmare scenario.”

That type of response would present its own challenges for Hizbollah.

“From a deterrence perspective, a strike where Hizbollah plays a supporting role and where Iran is the lead actor might not be seen as big enough to re-establish deterrence in Lebanon,” said academic and Hizbollah expert Amal Saad.

The killing of Shukr was a humiliating blow, taking place in a residential building in the group’s stronghold in southern Beirut, in a show of Israel’s intelligence superiority. 

“Hizbollah’s response is therefore existential for them,” Saad said.

Experts speculated Hizbollah could hit a high-value target inside Israel — a location little known to the public that would rattle Israel’s military. It could also seek to showcase new weapons capabilities with a precision strike on a major facility.

“They need to cross Israel’s red lines without meeting the threshold for a full-blown war,” Saad said.

Both sides’ red lines have evolved since hostilities broke out.

Hizbollah has suffered heavy losses, with more than 350 members killed in combat, including dozens of mid-to-high ranking officers and a handful of senior commanders.

Israel violates Lebanese airspace daily to launch air strikes. But efforts have been made to minimise civilian casualties for the most part.

“An attack that creates mass civilian casualties would be very likely to trigger a full-scale war,” said Wood. “But they could still make their point without doing so, by going higher up the escalation ladder.”

Asked on Wednesday whether Israel and Hizbollah could avoid full-blown war, Hochstein replied: “I hope so, I believe so.”

He added: “We continue to believe that a diplomatic resolution is achievable because we continue to believe that no one truly wants a full-scale war between Lebanon and Israel.”