Hezbollah is responding to direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, under US sponsorship, on two tracks: political and military. Politically, it is disavowing the talks and calling on the state to “reconsider its decision to negotiate with Israel,” describing the move as one that “will deepen divisions among Lebanese.” At the same time, it has intensified rocket fire toward Israel to signal that any response will play out on the battlefield.
On the political front, Hezbollah MP Hussein Fadlallah, a member of the party’s “Loyalty to the Resistance” parliamentary bloc, said “the authority in Beirut is unfit, with personal interests, and at times sectarian ones, prevailing over the national interest.” At a press conference in parliament, he said it was “continuing to make concessions to the enemy and has entered a misguided path that will widen the rift among Lebanese.”
He added: “The Lebanese authorities must reconsider their calculations and return to their people,” noting that “it was the authorities that withdrew the army from the south, leaving it exposed to occupation and granting it free opportunities.”
Fadlallah said that “despite the enemy destroying the Bint Jbeil stadium, it failed to capture any images inside it,” arguing that “the enemy tried to compensate for its battlefield defeat in the Washington negotiations.”
He called on the Lebanese government to “reconsider its decision to negotiate with Israel, as this step will increase divisions among Lebanese.”
His remarks came a day after Hezbollah political council member Wafiq Safa said the group was not concerned with the ongoing negotiations, telling The Associated Press the group would not abide by any agreements reached in the talks.
Field escalation
Hezbollah sought to reinforce that stance by launching around 40 rockets toward Israel within a single hour, particularly targeting northern settlements. It also released footage showing the launch of a cruise missile toward a military site in the Upper Galilee, saying it targeted a gathering of Israeli soldiers at the Misgav Am site. The group also announced additional operations, including the launch of drone swarms and rocket barrages at various positions.
A negotiation formula outside the state
Commenting on the implications of the escalation, retired brigadier general Saeed Qazah told Asharq Al-Awsat that “the party is trying at this stage to establish a clear equation for Israel: it is not concerned with any negotiations conducted through the Lebanese state, but is instead seeking to entrench itself as the sole party that can be addressed to reach a ceasefire, as happened in previous phases.”
He added that “the party effectively does not recognize the authority of the Lebanese state in this matter, nor its ability to negotiate with Israel, particularly on the security dimension along the southern border.”
Qazah said this approach aims, first, to consolidate its role as a party capable of imposing negotiation terms, and second, to keep this card in Iran’s hands for use within its broader negotiations with the United States.
He also linked the escalation to timing, noting that “military operations in the south are ongoing, and the party remains engaged in field clashes with the Israeli military.”
He said that “the launch of around 40 rockets this morning, coinciding with the reopening of schools in Israeli settlements, carries implications beyond the immediate military dimension. It falls within the framework of asserting presence and sending a message that the war has not stopped, and that any negotiating track in Washington does not automatically mean de-escalation on the Lebanese front.”
He added that “the party is seeking to reproduce the pattern of indirect negotiations that prevailed in earlier phases, such as in 1993, 1996, and 2000, up to the 2006 war, when communication channels were conducted through international mediators, without the Lebanese state being the effective party managing the process.” He said this approach also extended to more recent episodes, including the maritime border demarcation file, where understandings were effectively reached under a formula imposed by the party, while the Lebanese state was in the position of recipient, or the party completing the formal framework of the agreement.
Political messages under military cover
Retired brigadier general Naji Malaeb offered a different reading of the military dimension, saying the escalation “does not carry decisive military value so much as it serves to assert political and military presence.” He explained that “Iran’s missile doctrine relies on launching multiple waves of missiles or drones to exhaust air defenses in order to ensure that the main ballistic missile reaches its target, but what is happening now does not reach that level of effectiveness.”
Malaeb added that “the military effort Hezbollah is exerting today does not alter the balance of power and inflicts only limited losses on Israel, given Israel’s comprehensive readiness, both in terms of defenses and infrastructure, including shelters that protect civilians,” noting that “Israel’s technological superiority, particularly in the field of drones, makes it difficult to confront this type of operation on the ground.”
He linked the escalation to the negotiation context, saying “what is happening is more of a political message than a military action, aimed at showing that the decision of war and peace remains in the party’s hands, not the Lebanese state.”
Malaeb added that “the continuation of operations is part of reinforcing an equation: if Israel continues fighting, we will also continue, but without meaningful military impact.”
