Listen to the article

Maintaining a “neither war, nor peace” climate while upholding a delicate balance by nurturing a bellicose atmosphere aimed at appeasing its domestic support base and refraining from open military confrontation with Israel: This seems to be the strategy Hezbollah has adhered to, at least for now. This status quo has persisted since August 2006…

The recent episode revolving around the renewal of UNIFIL’s mandate and the fervent debates at the United Nations headquarters in New York, as well as in major Western Chancelleries (ministries of foreign affairs), serves as a striking illustration of this diplomatic (and mediatic) maneuvering engaged in by the current actors in Southern Lebanon. The Shiite faction, benefiting from the hardly tacit support of the current government and the “understanding” of the French authorities, has diligently pursued a campaign to neutralize the clause of the UN Security Council’s resolution that provides unrestricted freedom of movement to UN peacekeepers (Blue Helmets) within their operational zone.

Hezbollah failed to achieve its objectives, leaving Lebanon with a meager consolation prize — an unclear mention stipulating UNIFIL’s “freedom of action in coordination with the Lebanese government.” This didn’t meet the Shiite party’s expectations. Lebanon’s caretaker Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdallah Bou Habib had to explicitly underline that Beirut will strive for a better outcome next year! In other words, this implies placing restrictions on UNIFIL’s movements… to allow the mentee of Tehran’s mullahs to expand its activities, albeit within the bounds of legality! Hezbollah is very keen to obtain the legal cover of official local or foreign bodies, even if it subsequently despises and scorns them after achieving its goals.

In practice, over the next twelve months, we can expect a rise in specific actions on the ground aimed at impeding de facto the Blue Helmets’ operations. True to its customary approach in such scenarios, the pro-Iranian faction won’t directly engage but will instead work through “residents,” preferably “female residents,” who will obstruct UN troops during patrols using various pretexts. The exact nature of these pretexts is of little importance…

This tactic, occasionally employed by the militias that held sway over West Beirut during the civil war to block passages between the two sectors of the Capital, offers unrivalled benefits to the “Party of God.” It allows it, as it has been the case since 2006, to remotely orchestrate an ‘incident’ on the ground whenever deemed necessary. This serves to reaffirm their trouble-making, to satisfy their popular base by perpetuating an illusion of “resistance,” all while avoiding undue attention on their military arsenal.

At first glance, it seems that Hezbollah has little interest in pushing beyond the current state of “neither war nor peace,” especially in light of the recent demarcation of the maritime border between Israel and Lebanon and the start of drilling operations in Block 9, a location that straddles this boundary. Some observers suggest that the Shiite party, along with the Iranian mullahs, may have tacitly approved the agreement with the Hebrew State to initiate work in Block 9 in exchange for substantial revenues, which would then benefit the pro-Iranian faction and its godfather in various ways. After all, Israel did secure the right to exploit a part of the Cana gas field located within Block 9, with the consent of both Tehran and its Lebanese ally. As the saying goes, “money does not stink,” especially among pragmatic “adversaries.”

The ambivalent situation orchestrated by Hezbollah in the South only represents the tip of the iceberg, which, as suggested by numerous experts, conceals tacit agreements and unspoken arrangements. However, isn’t it often said that in the realm of macro-politics, nothing is entirely black or white?