Hezbollah’s Strategic Trap in a US–Iran War: Escalation, Restraint, and the Unravelling of Lebanon

By Elijah J. Magnier – 

If and when the United States initiates a direct and prolonged war against Iran, Hezbollah will face a dilemma that goes far beyond battlefield calculations. The movement’s decision—whether to intervene militarily or to exercise restraint—will shape not only the trajectory of the regional conflict but also Lebanon’s internal political order and the long-term security of its Shiʿa population. There is no neutral option, and no outcome that preserves the existing equilibrium. This dilemma is not hypothetical; it is structurally produced by the intersection of regional war planning and Lebanon’s unresolved internal balance of power.

This is because Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon has never been purely military. Since the end of the civil war, it has functioned simultaneously as a deterrent force against Israel, a political actor embedded within state institutions, and a social protector for a community historically exposed to marginalisation, collective punishment, and recurrent violence. A regional war that directly targets Iran would place all three roles under simultaneous and extreme pressure.

In the event of a destructive war against Iran, Lebanese authorities would likely seize the opportunity to confront Hezbollah politically and militarily, reviving demands for its full disarmament under the banner of state sovereignty, and under strong external encouragement. Such a move would not be procedural or consensual. It would be confrontational, abrupt, and destabilising, risking internal clashes that could rapidly escalate beyond political dispute.

Under these conditions, the possibility of security fragmentation cannot be dismissed. Lebanon’s armed and security forces, already strained by economic collapse and political paralysis, could fracture under sectarian and external pressure, recalling earlier moments when national institutions collapsed into civil confrontation. Rather than restoring sovereignty, an aggressive disarmament push in the midst of a regional war would risk accelerating Lebanon’s institutional breakdown and reopening the dynamics of internal conflict that the post-war order was meant to contain.

What follows is the first and most visible branch of this dilemma: intervention, and the scale of escalation it would almost certainly trigger.

Intervention and the Cost of Escalation