TEHRAN – Analyzing Hezbollah’s positions is essential to grasping the current reality in Lebanon amid a framework agreement between the Lebanese government and the Israeli regime.

The government argues the agreement will foresee the end of Israeli occupation and aggression in Lebanon, as well as the return of the displaced. Critics argue this is a mirage. The agreement effectively grants the occupying regime power over the Lebanese government and the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) power over the Lebanese Army to verify that they carry out their “obligations”.

A day after the U.S.-brokered agreement was signed in Washington, the IOF continued to drop bombs in southern Lebanese towns and villages, while the IOF continued to advance towards the outskirts of Kfar Shuba. Lebanon’s state news agency said the Farah amusement park in the Nabatieh al-Fawqa area was hit by an IOF drone attack. Al-Tiri town came under bombardment, and the IOF set fire to the forest of Markaba.

Critics argue that the terminology used by Lebanese officials, such as “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity”, sounds appealing, but pursuing sovereignty by “surrendering” to an adversary is a reckless approach, particularly given that successive Lebanese governments have attempted and failed to achieve this goal both before and after 2000. Again, this agreement lacks any clause that holds the Israeli regime accountable for its war crimes in Lebanon. 

The terms of the agreement, being celebrated by Washington’s largest Zionist lobby, AIPAC, have not helped Lebanese officials make their case to the public either. The only language that the Israeli regime understands is the language of resistance. The position of Hezbollah is pivotal, as the agreement is aimed at eliminating Lebanon’s largest power of resistance, which risks another civil war. Lebanese Parliament speaker Nabih Berri has warned against sedition, after a night of unrest by Lebanese protesters who poured their anger at the agreement on the streets of Beirut. 

Despite the setbacks it has suffered, Hezbollah has remained a key and influential force in Lebanon’s political and security equation. In fact, its presence and influence have strengthened following the failure of the illegal U.S.-Israeli war against Iran and Israel’s inability to accomplish its goals in Lebanon.

Perhaps the clearest insight into the Lebanese resistance movement’s current positions comes from the speeches of its Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, who has delivered a series of statements in recent months that serve as the basis for identifying Hezbollah’s fundamental principles for the next phase.

A review of Sheikh Qassem’s speeches shows that he begins with an assessment of the current situation, which he regards as extremely dangerous because of an “international U.S.-Israeli conspiracy project.” He underlines that it represents “the greatest threat our country, our children’s future, and our values could face.”

In his Ashura speech, he outlined key elements of this project, which he believes is fundamentally aimed at “completely and existentially eliminating the resistance from Lebanon.”

Among the most significant points are:

- Reversing the November 27 agreement following the fall of the Syrian government, because “the balance of power has changed,” according to Zionist and American assessments, a view also adopted by Hezbollah’s domestic opponents.

- Relying on Lebanon’s political authorities to provide political cover for the Israeli aggression while intensifying the blockade on the resistance at every level.

- Inciting conflict between the Lebanese Army and the Lebanese resistance, attempting to provoke Christian-Sunni-Shia strife, and pressuring Syria to intervene from the east so that, together with the Zionist regime in the south, it forms a pincer movement against Hezbollah.

- Benefiting from international and Arab political backing that exerts pressure in multiple directions in favor of the Israeli regime and against the Lebanese resistance.

- Utilizing the capabilities of multiple intelligence agencies to provide Tel Aviv with information and various forms of support.

According to this assessment, all of these efforts are being carried out under the direct supervision of the United States, which oversees the plan and coordinates its implementation across every level and direction.

In several speeches, Sheikh Naim Qassem has addressed how Hezbollah intends to confront a major and dangerous plot targeting it, based on a set of principles that can be regarded as the foundations of Hezbollah’s conduct in the coming period.

No return to the pre–March 2 reality

Hardly any of Sheikh Qassem’s speeches omit this point, making it one of the central pillars of Hezbollah’s current political approach. Based on the Secretary-General’s remarks, the issue amounts to a red line from which there can be no retreat, regardless of the pressure or the cost.

Conducting the confrontation in the spirit of Karbala 

This position is closely linked to the previous one. Hezbollah believes that the current period is the most dangerous since its founding. Sheikh Qassem has emphasized the gravity of the moment by stating that the purpose of the war imposed on Hezbollah is to remove it from the political equation and erase its existence.

Accordingly, Hezbollah frames the confrontation as an existential struggle in every sense of the word, requiring readiness to endure whatever sacrifices and costs may be necessary. This is a message the Lebanese resistance consistently directs to both its domestic opponents and its external adversaries.

Commitment to the option of resistance  

Sheikh Qassem repeatedly affirms Hezbollah’s commitment to the path of resistance and its readiness to activate that option as long as the Israeli occupation and aggression continue. This position is rooted in the firm belief that “the resistance is the only guarantee for liberating the land and achieving independence and sovereignty in the face of occupation.”

Rejecting continued occupation and the so-called ‘freedom of movement’

Sheikh Qassem’s language on this issue is exceptionally clear and reflects a firm, irreversible decision. According to the Secretary-General, Hezbollah will not accept the continuation of any form of occupation, nor will it accept what the Zionist regime calls “freedom of movement” within Lebanese territory.

Sheikh Qassem expresses this position in direct, unequivocal terms:

“Let the Israelis and everyone else know that remaining on Lebanese land is impossible. There are no security zones for the enemy, and there is no piece of land inside Lebanon where the Israeli (occupation) army can remain. We have a national army, and it is the one deployed on our territory.”

He also stresses that the Lebanese resistance will not tolerate any violation, stating: “Any violation will be confronted, any violation will be fought, and any violation will be dealt with in whatever manner we deem appropriate.”

This position stems from the belief that Hezbollah forfeits its rationale if it accepts occupation or Israeli aggression as a fait accompli.

Preserving national unity and Lebanon’s internal balance

This principle is evident in Sheikh Qassem’s remarks on the failure of attempts to create conflict between the Lebanese resistance and the Lebanese Army, as well as the failure to provoke Sunni-Shia sectarian strife. His praise for those who refused to be drawn into such efforts further underscores Hezbollah’s commitment to national unity and its rejection of any form of internal conflict.

On the domestic political front, Sheikh Qassem repeatedly reaffirms Hezbollah’s commitment to the Taif Agreement and its adoption of a flexible approach that respects Lebanon’s delicate internal balance. 

He also offers reassurances to Lebanon’s various communities and calls on all political forces, including the government, to deal wisely with the country’s unique political structure, arguing that it cannot withstand reckless policies or attempts by one side to dominate another.

In this context, he declares: “I am telling you now, and hold me to it: no one will dominate anyone else in Lebanon. We do not seek to dominate anyone, and we will not allow anyone to dominate us. Lebanon can only survive through coexistence, and we are committed to coexistence. It is destroyed by monopolization and by relying on foreign powers. We must cut off foreign interference and resolve our issues among ourselves.”

The region has entered a new phase

Hezbollah operates on the basis that the region has entered a fundamentally different phase following recent developments and that the new balance of power does not justify making any concessions to the occupying Israeli regime. 

It argues that the defining feature of this stage is “the defeat of the U.S.-Israeli project aimed at crushing the resistance,” and that this strategic shift requires adhering to the new realities rather than returning to the past.

Closing the chapter on disarming the Lebanese resistance

Sheikh Qassem believes that recent developments, together with the Israeli regime’s failure to achieve its objectives, require moving beyond previous debates over disarming Hezbollah. He therefore promotes the formula of “security for security,” arguing that any future understanding must be based on mutual security and the deployment of the Lebanese Army south of the Litani River.

He states: “Anyone who wants an agreement with the Zionist regime must agree on mutual security and the deployment of the Lebanese Army south of the Litani River. Anything else is unacceptable to us. As for plans to disarm the resistance, that issue is over. We are now in the phase of defeating the Israeli project, so it makes no sense to continue discussing proposals that belonged to one or two years ago.”

Viewing the Islamic Republic of Iran as a strategic depth

Sheikh Qassem has repeatedly emphasized the importance of Hezbollah’s relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran, viewing it as the strategic depth of the Lebanese resistance, and of Lebanon as well. From this perspective, he has repeatedly urged the Lebanese state to benefit from and strengthen this relationship, and to join the region’s emerging new order.

In this regard, he states: “To the political authorities, I say: resolve your relationship with Iran. America is managing its relationship with Iran, and every Arab country is managing its relationship with Iran. So why are you still lagging behind?”