Abstract

Amid the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, Hezbollah has remained militarily passive, relying on rhetoric and symbolic gestures over direct engagement. This calculated restraint underscores the organization’s strategic vulnerabilities—domestic opposition, operational setbacks, and deep reliance on Iranian support. The central question now is whether Hezbollah will ultimately choose to enter the war. What is clear is that, as of June 2025, Hezbollah is focused above all on ensuring its own survival.

Introduction

Following the November 2024 ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon—and even in the face of continued Israeli attacks in Lebanon—Hezbollah has deliberately chosen not to respond militarily. Instead, it is focused on preserving its public legitimacy (both among the general public and its Shiite base) and projecting an image of resilience. Its military capabilities and domestic standing have been weakened due to the conflict with Israel, the death of its prominent leader Hassan Nasrallah and other senior commanders, and the severe damage to its command-and-control infrastructure. Politically, the group has also suffered setbacks, including the failure to secure its preferred presidential candidate and the growing strength of rival political factions in Lebanon. As a result, the dominant narrative in Hezbollah’s rhetoric emphasizes national unity and civilian steadfastness rather than armed resistance. In short, Hezbollah has chosen restraint—because it recognizes that its current strategic position does not support escalation. 

Then came a dramatic shift: on June 13, 2025, Israel launched a preemptive war against  Iran, repeatedly targeting nuclear and military assets. In response, Iran began firing long-range ballistic missiles and drones at Israel. A full-scale war was now underway—the very scenario Hezbollah was created to confront. Since its inception, Hezbollah has been positioned as Iran’s forward military arm in the event of open conflict with Israel. This moment, in theory, should have activated its core mission. Yet, despite the escalation, Hezbollah remains silent on the military front. Why does it refrain from responding?

Hezbollah’s Position in the Israel-Iran Conflict

In the first days following the outbreak of the “Operation Rising Lion”, Hezbollah’s narrative aligned fully with Iran, framing Iran’s response as a just struggle against Israeli aggression. In a series of statements over the past few days, Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem reaffirmed Hezbollah’s support for Iran, declaring: “We in Hezbollah, …support the Islamic Republic of Iran in its rights and position, and in all steps and measures it takes to defend itself and its choices. The criminal Israeli enemy and its tyrannical patron America will reap nothing but shame, disgrace, and loss.”^[1] This statement represented one of the earliest expressions of Hezbollah’s wartime stance— fully aligned with Iran’s, yet still devoid of direct military engagement.

In the days that followed, Hezbollah watched as its patron, Iran, absorbed repeated strikes by Israel—losing key figures and strategic infrastructure. While the organization’s rhetoric intensified, becoming more militant in tone, it still refrained from taking concrete military action against Israel. When reports surfaced that Israel and the United States were threatening to target Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, Hezbollah responded with a formal declaration of loyalty, stating: “It seems that some regional actors fail to comprehend the great stature of the senior religious reference and Grand Ayatollah Imam Khamenei, a leader revered by Iran, the Muslim Ummah, the world, and all free nations.”^[2]

The messaging escalated further following direct threats from the United States to join Israel and attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. On June 19, 2025, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem delivered a speech, explicitly rejecting neutrality and affirming Hezbollah’s alignment with Iran: “We in Hezbollah and the Islamic Resistance are not neutral between Iran’s legitimate rights and independence, and America’s falsehood and aggression, alongside the cancerous gland ‘Israel’ and the global oppressors. We stand firmly with Iran in confronting this global injustice because we stand for our independence, the liberation of our land, and the freedom of our choices and decisions. We are not neutral. That is why we clearly state our stance alongside Iran, its leadership, and its people, and we will act as we see fit in response to this brutal American-Israeli aggression.”^[3]

Despite the rhetoric and declarations, Hezbollah’s stance remained restrained on the battlefield—a calculated choice that reveals more about its current limitations than its ideological commitments. What is clear is that, as of June 2025, Hezbollah is focused above all on ensuring its own survival.

Local Lebanese voices were quick to respond to Hezbollah’s rhetoric and the broader escalation between Israel and Iran. Both President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam made clear that Lebanon is seeking to distance itself from the unfolding confrontation and prioritize national stability.

President Aoun, underscored Lebanon’s commitment to reconstruction and recovery, declaring: “Lebanon will not be drawn into the Iran-Israel conflict. Our focus is on rebuilding, not war. ” Aoun rejected the idea that Lebanon was on the brink of war and questioned the cost such a path would impose. Both Aoun and Salam reiterated that Lebanon’s national interest lies in remaining neutral and shielding itself from further destabilization.^[4]

Speaking directly to Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, Lebanese Forces Party leader Samir Geagea issued a statement underscoring the limits of Hezbollah’s authority. “You cannot act on your own initiative,” Geagea stated, emphasizing that the power to make decisions of war and peace resides solely with the Lebanese government. Reasserting the primacy of the state, Geagea added: “Lebanon is a sovereign state, not a chaotic arena.”^[5]

A War Fought with Words, Not Rockets

While Hezbollah has so far refrained from any direct military action, it has become increasingly active in the media arena and through symbolic displays of solidarity. Instead of engaging on the battlefield, the group appears to be channeling its efforts into maintaining its ideological alignment with Iran. For example, Hezbollah organized a solidarity rally with the Iranian people at the Sayyida Zahraa Complex in Sidon, Lebanon.^[6]

In the media arena, both Hezbollah’s formal and informal channels have been actively amplifying Iranian rhetoric and propaganda. Its official military media continue to promote the narrative of a unified “Axis of Resistance,” frequently echoing statements from Iran and allied proxy organizations such as Hamas, PIJ, Ansar Allah, etc. Meanwhile, affiliated channels have focused on spreading propaganda, including intimidation posts using hashtags (such as #Iran_Is_Certainly_Victorious) and information on attacks in Israel (many times fake news)—mirroring tactics used by Iran.

Conclusions

Hezbollah’s restraint in actively joining the current conflict is grounded in three core factors: first, domestic constraints and lack of legitimacy. Hezbollah’s Lebanese orientation remains a significant limitation. The internal political and social situation in Lebanon has not changed: the group lacks the domestic legitimacy to launch a full-scale war against Israel. Any such move would only reinforce the criticism that Hezbollah operates solely as an Iranian proxy, acting against Lebanese national interests.

Second, operational limitations. Hezbollah’s current military capabilities do not allow it to open a new front with Israel. Every attempt to rebuild its operational infrastructure is met with targeted Israeli strikes on its facilities and personnel, which Israel justifies as violations of the ceasefire agreement. These actions have continued in parallel with Israeli operations in both Iran and Gaza, further deterring Hezbollah from escalation.

The third limiting factor is the state of Hezbollah’s relationship with Iran, particularly regarding financial and logistical support. Since the ceasefire, Iran’s capability to rebuild Hezbollah has been limited (due to the closure of air and land routes). Promised funding has not fully materialized, and Hezbollah has failed to fulfill its post-war commitments to the Shiite population of southern Lebanon—for instance, compensating families whose homes were destroyed. Despite these constraints, signs of ongoing coordination persist. In the days leading up to the Israeli strike on Iran, Iran’s foreign minister met with Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, reaffirming the strategic alignment between the two actors.

In the end, Hezbollah appears to be guided by a long-term strategic calculus—waiting for conditions to improve before considering a more active role. For now, survival is Hezbollah’s top priority—and it will act to preserve it as circumstances evolve.

Signs of Fragmentation Within the Axis of Resistance

While Iran’s network of regional proxies issued statements of solidarity following the Israeli strike, their actions have remained largely rhetorical, exposing cracks in what was once seen as a unified “Axis of Resistance.” In the event of American intervention, Iran’s allies released coordinated—but uneven—threats: Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq pledged to target U.S. interests in Iraq and the region; Hezbollah in Lebanon declared it was “not neutral” and would act “as it sees appropriate”; Meanwhile the Houthi leadership in Yemen threatened to attack U.S. ships and warships in the Red Sea. Following the U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, the Houthis declared that their agreement with the United States was no longer valid. Despite the aggressive rhetoric, the axis appears more fractured and reactive than coordinated—signaling a decline in its capacity to mount a unified regional response.

U.S. Enters the Conflict

The U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, marks a strategic turning point for the actors within the “Axis of Resistance.” In the coming days, they will likely face critical decisions about whether—and how—to escalate their involvement.

---

^[1] https://t.me/me_observer_TG/540475

^[2] https://t.me/NEWWORLDORDYR/36616

^[3] https://t.me/PalestineResist/79118

^[4] https://t.me/alakhbar_english/24386

^[5] https://t.me/me_observer_TG/558087

^[6] https://t.me/PalestineResist/79166

^[7] https://t.me/PalestineResist/79166