Lebanon left facing heavy consequences after 1,000 days of Gaza conflict
A reflection on how regional war dynamics reshaped Lebanon, deepened its internal crisis, and revived questions about state authority and armed power.
Messenger
Whatsapp
Threads
Email
Print
X
Facebook
After a thousand days since the October 7 attack, the region looks fundamentally different. However, Lebanon appears to have paid the highest price relative to the scale of the challenges that the “Axis of Resistance” took risks for.
From the moment Hezbollah decided to open a “support front,” Lebanon entered a war whose decision was not in the hands of its state and whose objectives were not tied to its national interests, but rather to the calculations of the axis led by Iran.
Today, after a thousand days, it is difficult for any observer to ignore the fact that Israel has emerged from the war with an army that is more experienced, better prepared, and more capable of operating on multiple fronts at the same time, while Lebanon has emerged with a weaker state, a more collapsed economy, a devastated south, and a population that has paid a heavy price in terms of security, livelihoods, and future prospects.
Since October 8, 2023, the question in Lebanon was not whether the front should be opened, but who has the ability to bear its costs. Hezbollah took the decision to go to war alone, outside constitutional institutions, just as it previously took the decision to possess weapons. Here lies Lebanon’s core dilemma: the state was not the one making the decision of peace or war, yet it became the one paying the bill.
Southern villages were destroyed, infrastructure was damaged, the economy lost billions of dollars, and investments evaporated, while the Lebanese government had no real ability to influence the course of events.
Assessments may differ regarding the scale of Israeli military achievements, but it is difficult to deny that Israel succeeded in delivering heavy blows to Hezbollah’s leadership and military structure. It also managed to significantly reduce part of its offensive capabilities and imposed a new security reality not only on the border but also on the Lebanese state itself.
As for Lebanon, it achieved no national gains in return for these losses. No new land was liberated, the state’s conditions did not improve, and the economic burden on Lebanese citizens was not lifted. On the contrary, Lebanon’s problems increased, international confidence in its ability to fulfill its commitments declined, especially Resolution 1701 and the restriction of weapons to the state, and future dealings with its right to restore sovereignty became tied to its success in experiences it agreed to undergo.