Why Have Hezbollah and Israel Backed Down from Previous Goals?

The recent ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel, which came into effect a few days ago, has sparked numerous questions about why both sides, particularly Hezbollah, retreated from their earlier stances regarding the conflict. This agreement does not fully meet the demands of either party and reflects a noticeable shift from previously declared goals.

A report published by Asbab analyzed the motivations behind the agreement and concluded that both Hezbollah and Israel have visibly backed down from their prior objectives, which they had previously emphasized and defended.

However, Hezbollah appears to have made the more significant concessions. The agreement represents a win for Netanyahu, achieving his key goal of separating the war in Lebanon from the war in Gaza—something Hezbollah had vehemently opposed in the past. The party has paid a heavy price for its stance, including the assassination of its Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, as noted in the Asbab report.

Moreover, Hezbollah’s withdrawal from South of the Litani River implies neutralizing a significant component of its conventional missile arsenal, whose range is limited to a few kilometers and poses a threat to settlements in northern Israel.

Key Points in the Agreement

The agreement also marks a retreat by Hezbollah on other fronts, such as its earlier refusal to allow the United States to chair the committee overseeing the agreement’s implementation. This concession may provide a cover for potential Israeli violations and adds pressure on the Lebanese army to meet its obligations, including clearing armed Hezbollah presence from south of the Litani River, according to the Asbab report.

While the agreement is fragile and riddled with loopholes that could lead to its collapse, both sides’ interest in avoiding further escalation remains the primary guarantee for maintaining the truce—not the written terms. Consequently, it is likely that both parties will preserve the ceasefire, which may evolve into a prolonged de-escalation unless a direct confrontation between Iran and Israel erupts. In that case, Hezbollah would likely resume targeting Israel.

What Does Hezbollah’s Retreat Signify?

The Asbab report emphasizes that Hezbollah’s retreat should be viewed in the broader geopolitical context, reflecting Iran’s growing sense of vulnerability. This includes threats to its regional influence, carefully built over the past decade, as well as domestic concerns if faced with a large-scale attack by the United States and Israel.

Tehran is therefore working to contain the current escalation. Hezbollah’s concessions are not only significant in the context of the Lebanese-Israeli conflict but also highlight the relative weakening of the Iranian axis due to U.S. backing for Israel’s military operations across the region.

The victory of Trump further cements Iran’s inclination toward de-escalation, seeking understandings with the U.S. to reduce tensions, as echoed in a report by The New York Times.

What About Israel?

On the Israeli side, the main concession has been abandoning its goal of dismantling Hezbollah’s capabilities and reducing its ability to strike deep into Israel. Instead, it has adopted an alternative strategy of containment. Netanyahu has reluctantly accepted a similar approach to Hezbollah that he previously rejected when dealing with Hamas in Gaza: a long-term, coordinated effort to isolate and weaken Hezbollah over time.

This approach involves cutting off Hezbollah’s financial and military supply lines, tightening political and security constraints within Lebanon, and enhancing the capabilities of Lebanese military and intelligence forces to monitor borders, ports, and airports more effectively. Additionally, monitoring Hezbollah’s movements and activities remains a priority.

Reports from Israeli ministers indicate that several complex and classified reasons prompted Israel to accept the agreement despite its shortcomings. According to Yedioth Ahronoth, a senior Israeli official outlined three key reasons for supporting the ceasefire:

1. 1. Avoiding a likely United Nations resolution mandating a ceasefire in Lebanon.

1. 1. The need to relieve the burden on Israel’s reserve forces, stretched thin between Lebanon and Gaza.

1. 1. Successfully separating the Gaza and Lebanon fronts.

What Lies Ahead?

The Asbab report suggests that Israel is unlikely to stop targeting Hezbollah’s infrastructure through strategic strikes, even if such actions technically violate the agreement. Ambiguities in the agreement’s language allow both parties to justify breaches without necessarily causing its collapse, as the terms safeguard both Lebanon’s and Israel’s right to self-defense.

Ongoing Israeli strikes have inflicted significant damage on Hezbollah’s leadership and disrupted its internal systems, though these setbacks are temporary, and the group is expected to recover. Despite Israel’s claims, the extent of the damage to Hezbollah’s military capacity is likely exaggerated. The organization still possesses a more advanced missile system than what was generally deployed during the war, maintaining its ability to strike deep into Israel even after retreating north of the Litani.

Furthermore, Israeli promises to end Hezbollah’s political influence in Lebanon have proven to be mere aspirations with little basis in reality.

Thus, the ceasefire does not signify an end to efforts to weaken Hezbollah. Alongside internal pressures on its military and financial networks, the U.S. and Israel will continue targeting Iran in Syria to disrupt logistical supply routes. Without severing these routes, Hezbollah’s recovery and even enhancement of its capabilities are only a matter of time.

The current U.S. administration is expected to persist in these strategies, which align with broader Arab interests, including those of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan, as well as Turkey’s objectives.

The Asbab report also speculates that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may seize this opportunity to reposition himself regionally and secure political and economic support. However, while he may seek to limit Iranian dominance over his regime, a complete break from Tehran is unlikely.