Defeating Hezbollah: How the Iran Proxy's Strategy Is Backfiring
"Something is shifting. Without Iran’s grip, normalization between Israel and Lebanon may not happen immediately — but when it does, it could be slower, more organic, and ultimately more durable."
By Rawan Osman
If you think Hezbollah is losing this war, you’re misunderstanding the strategy.
Hezbollah is dragging Lebanon into a war it cannot win.
The military imbalance with Israel is obvious. The destruction is predictable. And Lebanon has nothing to gain from it.
So why do it?
Because what looks like a losing war is not meant to be won on the battlefield.
Since October 7, we’ve been watching a different kind of strategy unfold — one based on provocation.
Hamas did not only attack Israel. It provoked a reaction. The brutality, the humiliation, the horror — filmed and broadcast — were not random. They were designed to trigger an overwhelming Israeli response.
And it worked.
The war that followed produced exactly what was intended: images of destruction, civilian suffering, and global outrage.
This is the point most observers miss:
What the world sees as losses in Gaza and Lebanon can function as strategic gains. Because the goal is not military victory — especially not against a U.S.-backed Israel. The goal is to isolate Israel, radicalize populations, and block normalization between Israel and the Arab world.
Hezbollah is now applying the same logic.
By keeping the conflict alive, it ensures that any talk of peace between Lebanon and Israel becomes impossible. It reopens old wounds, fuels hatred, and traps the region in a cycle where coexistence cannot even be imagined.
And behind all of this stands Iran.
Gaza and Lebanon are not the center of the strategy. Tehran is. As long as the system is coordinated from there, it can absorb destruction on the periphery and continue the fight.
But this is where the story becomes more complicated: This strategy, as effective as it may seem, is also deeply risky.
Iran pushed too far.
By escalating across the region, it didn’t just provoke Israel — it alarmed Sunni Arab states. It exposed its inability to protect its allies and revealed the true cost of belonging to its axis.
Iran’s strategy assumed that intellectual asymmetry could offset military asymmetry — that provocation, narrative control, and ideological endurance could outmaneuver Israeli and American power. But that assumption is now being tested. If Israel and the United States adapt faster than anticipated, the very framework designed to trap them may instead expose the limits of the Iranian strategy.
And something is shifting.
In Lebanon, more people are openly questioning Hezbollah. More voices are challenging Iran’s role. More are realizing that this endless war leads nowhere.
Yes, many Lebanese have dismissed normalization with Israel after the invasion of southern Lebanon. But at the same time, they are also beginning to dismiss Hezbollah as a legitimate Lebanese actor.
This is the paradox:
A setback in Israeli-Lebanese relations — but also a setback in Iranian-Lebanese relations.
And without Iran’s grip, normalization between Israel and Lebanon may not happen immediately — but when it does, it could be slower, more organic, and ultimately more durable.
So, yes, Israel has paid a price in global opinion. But Iran is now paying a price in the region. And in the Middle East, power matters.
If Israel emerges strong, it will recover faster than many may think.
If Iran appears weak, it risks losing the very influence it built its strategy on.
So what are we really witnessing?
A sophisticated strategy that turned destruction into leverage.
But also a dangerous gamble.
Because a strategy built on endless provocation may succeed in dragging your enemy into the fire, but it does not guarantee you will walk out of it.
RAWAN OSMAN is a writer and researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Her regular commentary can be accessed on X, Instagram, Linkedin and Facebook.
