In the volatile landscape of the Middle East, the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, signed in November 2024, now teeters on the brink of collapse. What was once hailed by U.S. President Donald Trump as a "new beginning for an entire beautiful Middle East" at the Sharm El-Sheikh ceremony has, in practice, become a tense standoff defined by unfulfilled promises, daily violence, and the looming specter of a broader regional war.
Since the ink dried on the ceasefire, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) began dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure and collecting weapons in southern Lebanon, as agreed. But as the months rolled by, progress stalled—especially in the northern regions. According to The National Interest, the LAF initially delivered a secret plan to the Lebanese cabinet, outlining a phased approach: finish the south by the new year, then tackle the north. Yet, by October 2025, it was clear that Beirut’s commitment was wavering. The government’s reluctance to confront Hezbollah in the north, where the militia’s grip is strongest, has left the disarmament process incomplete and Israel’s patience wearing thin.
Israel, for its part, has not been idle. Almost daily since the ceasefire began, Israeli forces have struck Hezbollah operatives and arms caches across Lebanon. The strikes intensified in September and October 2024, severely degrading Hezbollah’s capabilities and forcing the group to accept the ceasefire—at least in the south. But north of the Litani River, Hezbollah has dug in its heels, refusing to disarm and daring the Lebanese government to push harder. The result is a tense status quo, with the threat of renewed war ever-present.
The risks of escalation are not theoretical. In August 2025, six LAF soldiers were killed by a boobytrap explosion while clearing a Hezbollah arms depot near Tyre—a deadly reminder of the militia’s reach and the perils of challenging it. Days later, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem issued a chilling warning: any serious move to confiscate the group’s weapons could plunge Lebanon back into civil war, echoing the country’s bloody 15-year conflict that ended in 1990.
Faced with this stark reality, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun shifted his strategy. Instead of pressing for full disarmament, he began advocating for "containing" Hezbollah’s weapons north of the Litani. "Weapons are not the main issue; it is the intention to use them that matters," Aoun said on October 24, 2025. This rhetorical pivot disappointed many who had hoped for a decisive break with the past. As The National Interest noted, Aoun’s earlier pledge to ensure the state’s monopoly on weapons now seems a distant memory.
Meanwhile, the cycle of violence continued. On October 23 and 24, 2025, Israeli airstrikes targeted multiple Hezbollah-affiliated sites near Shmesthar and Nabi Sheet in the Beqaa province of eastern Lebanon. According to WANA and Israeli media, five Israeli fighter jets struck 16 military targets in the Beqaa and northern Lebanon, including a facility believed to be producing precision-guided missiles. Lebanon’s Ministry of Health confirmed two civilian deaths and several injuries, with local sources warning the toll could rise. These attacks marked a sharp escalation, further undermining the already tenuous post-ceasefire calm.
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, speaking to Al Mayadeen TV on October 24, 2025, voiced the frustration felt by many in Beirut: "Diplomatic efforts with Israel have proven fruitless, and Tel Aviv’s injustices continue. The resistance plays a decisive role in preserving Lebanon’s sovereignty, and we remain committed to developing respectful relations with Iran and the Arab world." Salam’s statement underscores the delicate balancing act faced by Lebanon’s leaders—caught between U.S. and Israeli pressure, Hezbollah’s influence, and the ever-watchful gaze of Tehran.
Iran, unsurprisingly, condemned the Israeli strikes in the strongest terms. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei called the attacks a "terrorist crime" and warned that "the impunity of the Zionist regime, empowered by full U.S. support, has led to repeated violations of the ceasefire and now poses a serious threat to regional security." For Tehran, Hezbollah is more than a proxy; it is a vital component of Iran’s own security architecture. Every blow to Hezbollah is seen in Tehran as an attack on its "first defensive layer," raising the stakes of each Israeli operation.
The strategic calculus is complex. As WANA reports, Israel’s escalation in Lebanon coincides with stalled nuclear talks and renewed international pressure on Iran. Some analysts, like international relations scholar Saber Golanbari, argue that "despite its tactical gains, Israel has failed to achieve a decisive strategic victory. The survival of Hamas and Hezbollah, alongside the continuation of Iran’s nuclear program, keeps the Middle East in a state of ambiguity and suspended tension that could erupt into a new conflict at any moment."
This ambiguity, while dangerous, offers Iran a chance to redefine its role in the region. By supporting the Gaza ceasefire and calling for international prosecution of Israel, Tehran has signaled what Washington interprets as "calculated flexibility." Former President Trump, for his part, remarked, "I’ve received reports that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon, but I know they don’t have the capability right now." Beneath the surface, both sides appear to be testing each other’s red lines, seeking advantage without triggering a full-scale war.
For Israel, however, the bottom line remains unchanged. According to David Schenker, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "there will be no peace, no sovereignty, and no reconstruction for postwar Lebanon absent the confiscation of Hezbollah weapons." Jerusalem has shown willingness to negotiate on other issues—giving ground in the 2022 Maritime Agreement, for example—but on Hezbollah disarmament, there is no room for compromise. When Lebanon floated the idea of direct negotiations in October 2025, Israel swiftly rejected the overture and resumed its targeting of Hezbollah assets.
Within Lebanon, the debate over how to handle Hezbollah’s arsenal is far from settled. Some advocate a gradual approach, hoping the group might evolve into a purely political party. But as The National Interest observes, there is little evidence Hezbollah is interested in such a transformation. The militia is weakened but not defeated, and if left intact, it will almost certainly reconstitute its power.
As the situation stands, the risk of a renewed and potentially broader conflict is rising. Security and intelligence sources cited by WANA warn that the likelihood of direct confrontation between Iran and Israel is greater than it has been in years. The region remains suspended in a precarious balance—one miscalculation away from open war.
For the people of Lebanon, Israel, and the wider Middle East, the stakes could not be higher. The next moves by Beirut, Jerusalem, and Tehran will determine whether the current fragile peace holds, or whether the region slips once again into the abyss of war.
