Hezbollah Is Using UNIFIL to Deliver Political Messages

A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)
A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)
TT

Hezbollah Is Using UNIFIL to Deliver Political Messages

A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)
A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)

The repeated attacks against the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) are political messages from Hezbollah and Iran to the UN and international community.

Three attacks against the peacekeeping force were reported in one month alone. Never have there been this many attacks against the international troops in the space of one month. The attacks took place amid international calls that the Iran-backed Hezbollah party lay down its arms and for Lebanon to implement UN Security Council resolution 1701 and 1559.

UNIFIL has, meanwhile, taken a firmer stance against these assaults, more so than it has ever done before. In a sharp tone, it demanded that the perpetrator be held to account, calling on the Lebanese authorities to carry out a probe. This marked a shift in its tone as UNIFIL usually used to announce an investigation in such attacks and that it was coordinating with the Lebanese military.

Resolution 1701 was issued in August 2006 to end the Israeli war on Lebanon. It gave UNIFIL the jurisdiction to carry out the necessary security measures in areas where it is deployed in southern Lebanon. Among other points, the resolution demands that areas of UNIFIL's deployment are not used for hostile attacks of any kind. The resolution provides protection for UN facilities and employees, guarantees their freedom of movement in humanitarian work and protects civilians, while respecting the role of the Lebanese government.

The resolution effectively expanded the role of UNIFIL, which was first formed and deployed in Lebanon in 1978. Since then, the UN troops have been deploying at least 400 patrols a day. The troops have rarely come under attack and when they do, they usually happen before their mandate is extended in August of every year.

Political and field changes must have happened for three attacks to take place against UNIFIL in one month. In November alone, three assaults were reported against the troops. One attack was reported in the town of Shakra on December 24, another in the town of Ramia on December 25 and the third in Bint Jbeil on January 3. Often, "locals" are blamed for attacking UNIFIL.

'Locals' and Hezbollah
Lebanese academic and political researcher Dr. Mona Fayad rejects accusations that "locals" are behind these attacks. In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, she said that such excuses are "not fooling anyone." Rather, she said Hezbollah, which is "hiding behind the people", should be held responsible.

She said the party has managed over time to establish an authority that is independent of the Lebanese state. One of the ways it managed to reach this position is its assuming of the role of "speaking on behalf of the resistance community and labeling as 'locals' people, especially Shiites, whom it mobilizes whenever the party needs them to exert pressure on a certain side. That way the party avoids direct confrontation."

Political motives
The frequency of the recent attacks has raised questions over their motives and political messages to the international mission. UNIFIL was firm in demanding a probe into the attacks, rejecting attempts aimed at restricting its freedom of movement in the South.

Fayad noted the latest attack when a routine UNIFIL patrol was assaulted even though it did not veer off its main route. Past attacks have been blamed on patrols changing their routes without coordinating with the Lebanese army or on troops taking photos in specific locations.

Fayad said the latest attacks are taking place at a time when the residents of the South feel that they need UN troops given the security and peace they have established in the area since the implementation of resolution 1701. Prior to that, they had never experienced such peace and calm, she added. At a time of upheaval in the rest of the country in recent years, the South has enjoyed relative calm, with the assassination of Shiite dissident Loqman Slim last year as the only major incident. He was killed in the South, in an area that is filled with surveillance cameras and where Hezbollah must be very familiar with.

Hezbollah, continued Fayad, has exploited the "army, resistance and people" slogan to exert pressure on various sides, while still avoiding turning attention to it. Indeed, Hezbollah is not mentioned when attacks on UNIFIL are reported, but rather the "locals" are the ones being blamed. The party uses such tactics to give the impression that it is implementing resolution 1701.

Change in UNIFIL's tone
After the latest attack on January 25, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said the peacekeepers were not trespassing on private property, but were passing through a routine route. They were carrying out their duties according to resolution 1701 to preserve stability in the South.

He stressed that the resolution grants the troops complete freedom of movement and the right to deploy patrols in their area of operations. The attacks against the men and women who are serving peace are deemed as crimes by Lebanese and international laws.

The Lebanese authorities must probe these crimes and put the perpetrators on trial, he demanded.

Tenenti's statements mark a shift in tone. Fayad said the peacekeepers will no longer accept the excuse that the attacks were sparked by them changing their patrol route or that they were taking photos.

The change in the spokesperson's tone is a sign that the confrontation is growing because the UN mission senses a shift in the equation and an opportunity for it to play a better role, she explained.

Furthermore, Fayad said these changes "are not restricted to Lebanon alone," but they are tied to the Vienna nuclear talks with Iran.

International messages
Political researcher and retired Gen. of Staff Khaled Hamade said the timing of the attacks are more significant than the assaults themselves.

There is no doubt that Hezbollah is behind the attacks, which are tied to regional developments, Hamade told Asharq Al-Awsat. The developments point to significant changes on the ground in the region.

Iran is seeking to use its regional cards in response to its setbacks in the region, he explained. Iran, not Hezbollah, should be blamed for the attacks on UNIFIL because the party is an extension of Tehran in Lebanon.

Iran is seeking to "shuffle all regional cards," said Hamade. He cited the developments in Iraq that is stumbling in forming a new government. He also noted the attempt on the life of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi. He pointed to the repeated rocket attacks on the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia by the Iran-backed Houthi militias in Yemen.

These are all signs of Iran's reactions in regions where it wields influence, stressed Hamade. Moreover, the attack carried out by ISIS against Gweiran prison in northeastern Syria is "one of the cards Iran is using to exert pressure in the region." Lebanon is another one of Iran's cards and it is using UNIFIL to deliver messages.

Hamade said Tehran is using all the cards at its disposal in reaction to the setbacks it has suffered. In Lebanon, Hezbollah does Iran's bidding by attacking UNIFIL.

By attacking UNIFIL, Iran is saying that it can obstruct the implementation of resolution 1701, explained Hamade. Lebanon is helpless in responding to or thwarting such a violation, so the government often takes a very vague stance that does nothing in affecting the situation on the ground.

UN cover
Meanwhile, fears have been growing in the South that the attacks would force UNIFIL to pull out of Lebanon, which would cost the country one of its last remaining international covers as it grapples with an unprecedented economic crisis.

Hamade eased these concerns, saying the peacekeeping force will remain. The attacks will not force UNIFIL to withdraw, but the repeated incidents will prompt international reactions, perhaps even a Security Council meeting.

"The Council will not be extorted and will not allow the obstruction of an international resolution," he stated. "Furthermore, Hezbollah itself does not want the UN troops to withdraw because it will lose a precious card in its extortion."

Another factor is Israel, said Hamade. It wants an international force deployed in the South because it ensures its security. Iran itself also wants UNIFIL to stay so that it can continue on delivering its messages.

Hezbollah wants the troops to remain so that it can keep its attention focused on internal Lebanese affairs, added Hamade. It will continue to abide by resolution 1701, implementing it "with an Iranian twist and a way that serves its interests."



Sudan in 25 Years: One War Begets Another

Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)
Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)
TT

Sudan in 25 Years: One War Begets Another

Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)
Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)

The sound of gunfire, barrel bombs, and stray bullets is nothing new in Sudan. What’s new is that the violence has moved from the outskirts to the capital, Khartoum. This shift forced the government and military to relocate to a temporary capital in Port Sudan, nearly 1,000 kilometers away on the Red Sea coast.
Past conflicts were seen as rebellions against the state, but they stemmed from a deeper struggle: the “center” holds all the power and resources, while the “margins” are left with nothing.
These wars have always been about demands for rights and equality.
Under Islamist President Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s wars shifted from demands for rights to a “religious war” between the Muslim north and the Christian or secular south. This led to South Sudan’s secession and the creation of a new state that joined the United Nations. But what drives the conflicts that continue to devastate Sudan?
Analysts say the root cause is the lack of a national vision and the failure to recognize Sudan’s ethnic and cultural diversity. Without a unified political and economic framework, this diversity has been ignored.
The current war, though fought between two formal armies, stems from the same issues of marginalization and exclusion. These problems sparked Sudan’s first rebellion in 1955, led by the Anya-Nya 1 forces, named after the cobra snake.
The Naivasha Agreement
Sudan’s first civil war ended with the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement but reignited in 1983 after former President Jaafar Nimeiri imposed Islamic Sharia law. This sparked a rebellion led by John Garang’s Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).
The conflict escalated into a “jihadist” war as Islamist forces framed it as a battle against “enemies of the faith.” The fighting lasted for years, killing more than two million people.
Unable to secure a military victory, the government signed the Naivasha Agreement in Kenya. The deal granted South Sudan the right to self-determination, with a five-year transitional period to decide between unity or independence.
John Garang briefly became Sudan’s First Vice President during this period but died in a mysterious helicopter crash. His deputy, Salva Kiir, succeeded him and led South Sudan to a 2011 referendum, where the region voted for independence. South Sudan became a new nation, taking a third of Sudan’s land, a quarter of its people, and most of its resources.
Meanwhile, conflict spread to Darfur in 2003, with rebels accusing the government of marginalization. The war turned ethnic when the government armed Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, to fight African-origin rebel groups. One Janjaweed leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, or Hemedti, later became the head of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The Darfur war claimed 300,000 lives. Al-Bashir’s government was accused of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, leading to International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Bashir and three senior officials that remain in effect.
Chasing Peace Across Capitals
In May 2006, Sudan’s government signed a peace deal in Abuja with a faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) led by Minni Arko Minnawi. However, the movement split, and another faction, led by Abdel Wahid al-Nur, rejected the deal and continued fighting from Jebel Marra in central Darfur.
Minnawi briefly joined the government as an assistant to President Omar al-Bashir but later rebelled again, claiming he was treated as a "kitchen helper" rather than a serious political partner.
Efforts to negotiate peace moved between capitals. In 2011, some groups signed the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur in Qatar, which promised power and wealth-sharing, but fighting continued.
In 2020, Sudan’s transitional government signed a new peace agreement in Juba with key armed groups, including Minnawi’s faction and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) led by Gibril Ibrahim.
The deal gave Minnawi the role of Darfur governor and Ibrahim the post of finance minister. Despite these accords, true peace remains out of reach.
A New Southern Conflict
War broke out in South Kordofan and Blue Nile, two regions given a right to “popular consultation” under the Naivasha Agreement to decide their future. The SPLM-North, an offshoot of the southern SPLM, took up arms again.
The SPLM-N split into two factions: one led by Malik Agar, now a deputy in Sudan’s Sovereign Council, who signed the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement; the other, led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, controls Kauda in South Kordofan and continues sporadic fighting.
Eastern Sudan also saw conflict in the 1990s, with groups like the Beja Congress and Free Lions opposing Bashir’s regime. These groups later signed the Asmara Peace Agreement, gaining shares of power and wealth.
In April 2019, months of protests forced the military to oust President Omar al-Bashir. But sit-ins continued, and a violent crackdown killed hundreds, drawing condemnation as a horrific crime against civilians.
Under public pressure, the military signed a constitutional declaration in August 2019, agreeing to share power with civilians. This led to a transitional government with Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, and a Sovereign Council headed by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and his deputy, Hemedti.
War of the Generals
On October 25, 2021, Sudan's army leader overthrew Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok’s civilian government in a coup. Under pressure from peaceful protests, the general later agreed to a framework agreement with civilian leaders, promising a return to civilian rule and preventing the return of the Islamist regime.
However, supporters of the former regime undermined the deal, causing tensions between the army and the RSF, leading to war.
On April 15, 2023, gunfire broke out in southern Khartoum, marking the start of the ongoing conflict. The RSF accused the army of attacking its camps, while some claim Islamist cells within the army targeted the RSF, forcing it to choose between surrender or war.
Miscalculations
The war was expected to end quickly due to the army’s stronger military. However, the RSF surprised the army by using urban warfare tactics to take control of key military bases and government buildings, including the presidential palace.
The government moved to Port Sudan, while Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan was trapped for over three months before escaping.
The RSF expanded its control over Darfur, western Sudan, and the central Gezira region, holding about 70% of the country. After nearly two years of fighting, the army regained some areas, but the RSF still controls large parts of Sudan and continues fierce fighting, with the war still ongoing.
The Worst Humanitarian Crisis
The war in Sudan has killed tens of thousands and triggered what the UN calls "the worst humanitarian crisis in history." More than 11 million people are displaced within Sudan, while around 3 million have fled to neighboring countries. Over half of Sudan’s population, about 25 million people, face severe food insecurity.
Negotiations have failed, with both sides refusing to return to talks after the Jeddah Humanitarian Declaration collapsed, largely due to the army’s and its supporters' refusal to engage.
Root Causes
Former Sovereign Council member and deputy head of the Democratic Civil Forces Coordination “Tagadum,” Al-Hadi Idris blames the war on Sudan’s failure to agree on a “national development plan” since independence.
Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, he says the main reasons for the conflict are the failure to implement fair development, achieve justice, and the lack of resolution on key issues like the role of religion in politics, national identity, and military involvement in government.
Idris argues that addressing these issues is crucial to ending the war for good.
Mohamed Abdel-Hakim, a leader in the Unionist Gathering, believes the wars stem from unequal development and citizenship.
He says resolving issues like marginalization, protecting people’s rights, and replacing oppressive regimes with democratic governance is key to stopping Sudan’s long-running conflicts.
Abdel-Hakim also calls for reforming the military to create a professional, national army focused on protecting the constitution and civilian leadership, with strict oversight to prevent the army from becoming politicized.