Khalil Helou

In a forthcoming series of articles, we intend to shed light on the current situation through the lens of history, steering clear of impassioned, ideological, or romanticized narratives that overlook the realities on the ground. Our aim is to give readers the tools to draw their own conclusions. In this context, it is high time to seriously challenge the sterile rhetoric of “resistance” – not with counter-rhetoric, but through a deeper approach that champions the rule of law, which can only be built on sovereignty. To understand the present, few things are as revealing as revisiting contemporary history, which continues to shape collective memory. The wars between Israel and Hezbollah deserve a closer look – beginning with the first conflict in 1993, along with the key events that preceded it, not to mention Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon on 25 May 2000, and the preceding and subsequent events, including the wars of 1996, 2006, 2023–2024, and 2026.

In a series of articles, we aim to shed light on the current situation in light of the past, moving beyond impassioned, ideological, or romanticized rhetoric that misses the mark and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions. In this context, it is high time to seriously counter the sterile rhetoric of resistance, not with counter-rhetoric, but with an in-depth approach that champions the rule of law, which can only be built upon sovereignty. The first two articles presented a reinterpretation of the events surrounding Hezbollah's rise to power, from the Taif Agreement through Operation "Settling of Accounts" and the "July Agreement" (1993), up to the eve of its second war with Israel.

In Lebanon, the ceasefire proclaimed by Donald Trump, which came into effect on Thursday night to Friday, and President Joseph Aoun's message to the nation on Friday, applauded by sovereignist leaders and many editorialists alike, have rekindled public hope. Hezbollah was quick to vehemently criticize the presidential speech, even resorting to threats, although its name was not explicitly mentioned once. This speech, commendable in itself, however, recalls the inauguration speech of January 9, 2025, which has still not been implemented. Donald Trump will invite President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for direct negotiations.

This series of articles will allow for a better understanding of the current situation in light of the past, moving beyond impassioned, ideological, or romanticized rhetoric that misses the mark, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions. Furthermore, it is high time to seriously counter the sterile rhetoric of resistance, not with counter-rhetoric, but with serious work by promoting the rule of law, which can only be established through sovereignty. The first part outlined the international and regional situation that led to the Taif Agreement and the beginning of Hezbollah's rise to power. This second part illustrates how the Hezbollah militia has continued to exist and strengthen itself under the dual sponsorship of Syria and Iran. Damascus's goal is to strengthen its position at the peace negotiation table with Israel, while Tehran's is to undermine any attempt at peace between Israel on the one hand, and Syria and Lebanon on the other.

In this fifth week of the Iran war, President Trump's statements are equivocal. So are those of Iranian leaders. Only the Israeli position is clear: priority to military and security imperatives. Information from the theater of operations, and sociopolitical analyses in the three belligerent states, come mainly from the press. The sources cited are often biased, and highlight only a part of the facts that serve the theses of their authors. It must be noted that the majority of the Western print media and audiovisual media insist more on the costs of the war than on its strategic outcome, which cannot be purely political or purely military, but must constitute a unique strategic synthesis. The military implements its own strategy to serve national objectives. Decision-makers do the same at the political level. An assessment of this campaign should take all of this into account.

In which direction is the war between the United States and Israel, on the one hand, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other, heading? This is a question that arises daily since the start of military operations, and to which many analysts and politicians, playing the soothsayers, have already hastily responded with certainty. However, it would be necessary to acquire a set of concrete data, difficult to obtain, in order to have precise answers to this question. It must be noted in this context that one often takes one's desires for realities, and analysts sometimes describe their own thoughts rather than analyzing tangible facts.

One hundred and eight years ago, just months before the end of the First World War – on March 18, 1918 – Georges Clemenceau, then France’s Prime Minister and Minister of War, addressed the National Assembly in stark terms: “People say: we do not want war, but we want peace as soon as possible. Ah! I too desire peace as soon as possible. Everyone does. Anyone who thinks otherwise would be a great criminal. But one must be clear about what one wants. It is not by bleating about peace that one silences Prussian militarism. My policy is this: I wage war.” This statement by the man widely regarded as the architect of France’s 1918 victory invites renewed reflection in light of the regional conflict unfolding today.

For some time now, a significant portion of public opinion has been accusing the army – and/or its commander-in-chief – of failing in its duty, if not outright mutinying against the government that tasked it with dismantling Hezbollah’s military arsenal. The Lebanese Army has thus become a favorite target for certain journalists, bloggers, and social media activists, even as it is admired – and nearly deified – by their counterparts in the opposing camp. The absurdity – and the sheer inadmissibility – of the situation lies in the fact that today’s admirers were yesterday’s fiercest critics, blaming the army for every ill. They accused it of “collaboration” with American “imperialism” – a clichéd label casually affixed by just about anyone to whatever they happen to dislike – in reference to military cooperation between Lebanon and the United States, even though, without American assistance, our army would have been rendered inoperative, given the paltry defense budget.

Analyses often miss the mark. We tend to drift into an excess of objectivity and a lack of imagination, or vice versa. At times, we even mistake our own desires for reality. It is a sobering fact that neither the most tragic events, nor their ultimate outcomes, were ever foreseen by even the most seasoned analysts. Only a few enlightened minds proved visionary, yet they were rarely heard within the high corridors of power, mired as they were in political, financial, and economic affairs. The Catalyst of the Two World Wars Few predicted the First World War. No belligerent truly desired it, especially following the various agreements and the carving up of global spheres of influence among the great powers of the era. Analysts, convinced that such a conflict could never be repeated and that Germany had been subdued for good, branded it the “War to End All Wars.”

For the past week, a new war – the fifth in 34 years – has pitted Israel against Hezbollah. It is yet another war that the Lebanese people never wanted. All the agreements that ended the previous four wars proved to be little more than temporary truces, exploited by Iran and Hezbollah on the one hand and by Israel on the other to prepare for the next round of fighting. All of this unfolded under the watchful eye of the Assad regimes, father and son, and of Lebanese presidents and governments beholden to Damascus or Tehran, particularly during the tenures of Hraoui, Lahoud, and Michel Aoun. The costs of these wars have been paid dearly, willingly by Hezbollah’s unconditional supporters, under the numbing effect of ideology; reluctantly by other Lebanese; and by Arab countries that financed reconstruction for both humanitarian and geopolitical reasons. The same scenario has therefore repeated itself for four decades: war, ceasefire, rhetoric of victory, the deterioration of Lebanon’s political authority, Hezbollah’s preparations for endless wars, mutual deception, and then war again. A proverb drawn from popular wisdom says that “a donkey does not stumble twice on the same stone.”