Preliminary Assessment on Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire

While the agreement offers tactical gains for both Hezbollah and Israel, their major disagreements remain unresolved. This suggests that conflict is likely to reignite.

When Hezbollah tacitly agreed to the Israel-Lebanon Maritime Border Deal in October 2022, its leadership and base celebrated, labelling the agreement a victory and a testament to Hezbollah’s strategic wisdom in deploying calculable military power to achieve a favourable political outcome. The deal allowed Lebanon’s gas to be exported to Europe in exchange for the promise of future Lebanese exports, while Israel began production and revenue generation immediately. Israel also signed an agreement with Egypt and the Palestinian Authority (and indirectly Hamas) a few months prior, concerning Gaza’s gas. At the time, my assessment was that Israel was preparing for war, and the agreement served as a layer of strategic deceit.

In addition to parallels with this deal, the ceasefire seems to have set the region on a non-refundable path to regional war, as the terms cannot realistically be honoured by either party. Ultimately, they will clash over interpretations on the ground, as is already occurring. In this piece, we analyse how Israel and Lebanon fared in the agreement and offer strategic insights and forecasts for the future trajectory of the war.

Israel’s End of It

The agreement is reminiscent of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, beginning with a cessation of hostilities that is expected to lead to new rules of engagement after 60 days. This time, the agreement is more explicit in defining who is legally permitted to bear arms south of the Litani River and expects Hezbollah to be genuinely demilitarised. The US and France are the main guarantors of the agreement and will aim to arm the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to disarm Hezbollah. The agreement also separates the war in Gaza from Lebanon.

At face value, the agreement is a double-edged sword for both Israel and Hezbollah. Israel has failed to demilitarise Hezbollah on its own and is effectively outsourcing the task to France, the US, and the LAF. It has not created a buffer zone nor restored Israeli confidence for a return to the North, a previously declared primary objective of the war. However, Israel succeeded in severing Gaza from Lebanon, undermining Hamas’s leverage in negotiations and delivering a significant blow to the “Unity of Frontiers” strategy initially proposed against Israel. Additionally, Israel has tarnished Hezbollah’s image of invincibility domestically, which could create further instability within Lebanon and abroad. Economically, reconstruction efforts in Lebanon are tied to the agreement’s enforcement, mirroring the approach taken in Gaza. This slows down reconstruction in Lebanon, eroding Hezbollah’s credibility as a powerful non-state actor.

Following the agreement, Israel committed to enforcing its terms against Hezbollah violations. Since then, Israel has conducted almost daily attacks on Lebanon, described as raids on Hezbollah. These attacks are expected to persist, as Israel prioritises enforcement while the ongoing displacement of Israelis from the North continues. Hezbollah is currently exercising restraint but may face mounting pressure to respond, placing the ceasefire’s future in jeopardy.

Hezbollah’s Losses and Betrayal of Hamas

On Hezbollah’s side, the group managed to prevent Israel from achieving some objectives. Israelis still cannot return safely to the North, fearing that fragile peace cannot guarantee protection from another attack akin to 7 October. Hezbollah also thwarted Israeli attempts to capture territory, as the agreement does not grant Israel any territorial rights, despite calls from settlers.

However, Hezbollah failed to secure the release of Lebanese hostages held by Israel. Its statement omitted mention of them, and the ceasefire agreement is silent on the matter, leaving room for potential future breaches. On paper, Hezbollah has effectively agreed to its own disarmament and diminishment. Despite the official ceasefire, Israeli forces continue to warn Lebanese civilians against returning to certain southern areas, citing LAF replacement delays. On day two, Israeli airstrikes against “Hezbollah targets” persisted. If fully enforced, the agreement could reduce Hezbollah to a local party with limited domestic influence and no broader regional agenda.

Hezbollah urgently needs to rearm, reorganise, and devise a new strategy to counter Israeli moves. Economically, reconstruction is a pressing issue, with widespread destruction, soaring unemployment, and inflation. Politically, Hezbollah’s partial success against Israel may prompt calls to rebalance its role within Lebanon. Time, however, is not on Hezbollah’s side.

Future of the Axis at a Crossroads

This significant retreat could mark the Axis’s ultimate decline or a period of regrouping. As a founding member, Hezbollah must reimagine its role within Lebanon and the region, including its involvement in Syria’s war and ties to Hamas. Israel views this as a foundational conflict for establishing the Abraham Market, while Hezbollah entered without a coherent strategy and now faces existential threats. If Hezbollah successfully reorganises, the ceasefire could provide an opportunity for repositioning and reinitiating. Regionally, Hezbollah’s allies are also under pressure, facing increased local military confrontations orchestrated by the US. The West-East clash remains a defining element of the Gaza war, and Hamas must rediscover its role.

While the agreement offers tactical gains for both Hezbollah and Israel, their major disagreements remain unresolved. This suggests that conflict is likely to reignite sooner rather than later, driven by disputes over interpretation and enforcement. The ceasefire establishes a fragile peace, insufficient for meaningful reconstruction in the short term. With Hamas now lacking leverage over Israel, the latter may exploit Hezbollah’s weakened position to reshape the strategic environment.

In stark contrast to Hezbollah’s victory narrative, the ceasefire underscores the group’s strategic failures, culminating in significant existential losses and a betrayal of Hamas. Despite Israel’s concurrent setbacks, the agreement represents a strategic win for Israel (and by extension, the Abraham Market vision), potentially heralding the Axis’s decline. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already indicated the ceasefire “may be short-lived.” It is therefore expected that this breached agreement is merely a pause in hostilities, with renewed conflict inevitable.