An Existential War on All Fronts Except the United States

By Elijah J. Magnier –

The war now unfolding across the Middle East is no longer a limited confrontation or another round of cyclical escalation. It has evolved into a conflict perceived by many of its actors as existential. For Israel, Iran and Hezbollah, the stakes are existential and tied to survival, legitimacy and the future strategic balance of the region. Yet one major power involved in the confrontation stands in a fundamentally different position. For the United States, despite its military presence and political involvement, the war is not existential.

The distinction matters because wars fought for survival follow a different logic from wars fought for influence or strategy. When actors believe their existence, power or identity are at stake, they are willing to absorb losses and escalate in ways that outside powers often struggle to anticipate.

For the Shia in the Middle East it is existential: Hezbollah has been considered an outlaw by the Lebanese government. Any failure will be the end of Hezbollah and the lose of the Shia community that long supported it. The Lebanese president Joseph Aoun is already breaking all redlines and is asking – to the total rejection of the Israeli – a direct negotiation that Lebanon never dare to ask before only when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and forced it around the table. For Hezbollah, this is its last battle if he loses but not the last, domestically and with Israel if Israel asks a ceasefire and accept Hezbollah’s conditions.

This short description reflects a profound transformation inside Lebanon. For decades Hezbollah maintained a delicate balance with the Lebanese state. While never fully integrated into state institutions, it justified its military strength as a national necessity, presenting itself as the force capable of defending Lebanon against Israel when the state itself lacked the capacity to do so. This argument allowed Hezbollah to operate as both a political actor and a powerful armed movement.

Today that arrangement is under unprecedented strain. Lebanon’s political establishment, already weakened by economic collapse and internal divisions, increasingly sees Hezbollah’s military autonomy as a liability that could drag the country into a devastating war. The suggestion of direct negotiations with Israel demonstrates how far the Lebanese political system has shifted under the pressure of the current confrontation. For many Lebanese leaders, avoiding national destruction has become more urgent than maintaining old political taboos, even at the cost of submitting to Israel.