Hezbollah’s Campaign against the Lebanese Government

Overview^[1]

• The tension between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah has intensified in recent months because of the organization’s decision to violate the ceasefire and renew the hostilities against Israel, and because of the current direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel under American auspices.
• Despite Hezbollah’s protests and firm public opposition to the government’s decisions to outlaw the organization’s military wing and its commitment to continuing the talks with Israel, President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam remain determined to pursue the policy.
• As a result, senior Hezbollah figures and organization-affiliated media outlets have increasingly sought to undermine the legitimacy of the president and prime minister’s actions. They claim the government’s actions sabotage Lebanon’s interests, betray the idea of “the resistance,”^[2] and call the two “agents serving the American-Zionist project.”
• In Amit Institute assessment, the growing number of voices within Hezbollah challenging the legitimacy of the government in Beirut reflect the organization’s weakness within Lebanon’s political system and its inability to influence government decisions and prevent moves it perceives as contrary to its interests, as it had done for decades. That lays the groundwork for actions that go beyond political discourse, and could materialize as “popular” efforts to topple or paralyze the government or as the targeted use of force against key leadership figures to deter a change in the government’s policy opposing Hezbollah’s activities.

The Tension between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government

• Hezbollah renewed the hostilities against Israel on March 2, 2026, to support Iran in in its war with the United States and Israel, ending the ceasefire in Lebanon which had been in effect since November 27, 2024. The renewal of the hostilities led the Lebanese government to escalate its measures against Hezbollah, including outlawing the organization’s military wing, declaring that all members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would be expelled from Lebanon and, subsequently, the removal of Iran’s designated ambassador from Beirut.^[3] That was in addition to the government’s August 2025 decision to disarm Hezbollah as part of implementing the state’s monopoly on weapons throughout the country.^[4]
• Another factor that contributed to the escalation of tensions between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government was Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s decision to approve the opening of direct negotiations with Israel under American mediation. Several rounds of direct talks, including military-level discussions, were held in Washington between the two countries’ delegations, with the objective of advancing a ceasefire and subsequently holding talks on a security agreement and the demarcation of the Israel-Lebanon land border. At the most recent meetings, held on June 2 and 3, 2026, an agreement was reached to implement the ceasefire and establish “pilot zones” in south Lebanon from which IDF forces would withdraw and be replaced by Lebanese army soldiers to ensure they were free of Hezbollah and other armed terrorist operatives.^[5]

Hezbollah’s Failure to Stop the Government

• The measures taken by the Lebanese government, particularly its willingness to conduct direct negotiations with Israel while attacks against Hezbollah targets continued, led to resentment among the organization’s leaders and supporters, who accused it of “surrender” and “concessions to American and Israeli dictates.” Posters distributed by the organization’s supporters depicted President Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam wearing skull caps and IDF uniforms with Israeli flags, while the two were accused of “betraying the resistance.” That also led to concerns that Hezbollah might assassinate senior Lebanese officials.^[6]
• Nevertheless, Aoun and Salam continued to defend the direct negotiations as the only way to stop Israel’s “aggression” against Lebanon, while rejecting Hezbollah’s criticism and Iranian attempts to link developments in Lebanon to the negotiations Tehran was conducting with the United States regarding an end to its own war:
  • Aoun represented the negotiations as the only way to achieve security and stability, and strengthen the state’s presence in the south, and noted the broad international and regional support for the move (Lebanese presidency X account, April 29, 2026). He issued a statement marking the 26^th anniversary of the IDF withdrawal from south Lebanon, in which he said Lebanon would not accept the current situation and the state was working to achieve a full Israeli withdrawal through negotiations “which will be neither concession nor surrender” (Lebanese presidency X account, May 25, 2026).
  • Aoun explained that in light of thousands of deaths and more than one million displaced persons, he had to act according to the dictates of his conscience and do his duty to the state and the people rather than remain idle, and therefore the only alternative was to hold direct negotiations. He added that strength did not mean going to war, it meant the courage and wisdom to end a war through negotiations for the benefit of the state (Lebanese presidency X account, June 2, 2026).
  • Interviewed by CNN, Aoun said that Hezbollah secretary general Na’im Qassem did not represent the Lebanese people, adding that dealing with Hezbollah fell to the Lebanese government. Regarding Iran, Aoun accused it of using Lebanon as a bargaining chip in its negotiations with the United States and claimed Tehran “is not trying to help us” because Lebanese citizens are paying the price for the pursuit of Iranian interests (CNN, June 5, 2026).

• • Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said direct negotiations were the fastest and least costly option for Lebanon, the Lebanese and the south of the country. He said they were not the only available option, but they were the best alternative, compared to continuing the war, pursuing cases in international courts for years or appealing to the UN Security Council, which would result in a political veto (Lebanese Prime Minister’s X account, June 4, 2026).
  • Salam said Hezbollah’s activities were illegal because the Lebanese leadership had the exclusive right to conduct negotiations on behalf of the Lebanese state and to make political and security decisions. Regarding Iran, Salam said Iran had never supported Lebanon and the best service it could provide would be to stop involving Lebanon in wars, because the Lebanese were now paying the price for a “war between Iran and Israel on Lebanese soil” (Al Arabiya, June 11, 2026).
• According to reports, President Aoun’s seeking to prevent Hezbollah from dictating government decisions has led to a debate within Hezbollah’s leadership regarding the value of the organization’s continued participation in the government, given that while it effectively legitimizes its policies, it also creates tension between the organization’s commitment to the idea of “the resistance” and its political role within the government (Lebanon 24, May 25, 2026).

Hezbollah Sharpens Its Rhetoric

• Hezbollah’s failure to dissuade the Lebanese government from advancing the negotiations with Israel deeply frustrated the organization’s leadership. Alongside firm opposition to the continuation of the direct talks and clarification that the organization would not accept any understandings reached in the negotiations, Hezbollah escalated its threats against President Aoun and the government, accusing them of failing to defend Lebanon and betraying the people:
  • In a speech marking 26 years since the IDF withdrawal from south Lebanon, Hezbollah secretary general Na’im Qassem called on the government to stop the negotiations, which he claimed Lebanon derived no benefits. He said the government should resign if it was incapable of defending Lebanon’s sovereignty against Israeli attacks, claiming the Lebanese had the right to take to the streets and overthrow the government. He implicitly threatened the government and reminded its leaders that “we warned you not to become a tool of the United States and Israel.” He added that “the existence of the resistance is under threat and we will defend ourselves until we achieve one of two goals: victory or martyrdom” (al-Manar, May 25, 2026).
  • Sheikh Muhammad Yazbek, head of Hezbollah’s Sharia Council, again said Hezbollah did not care what was taking place in the direct negotiations in Washington, calling it “surrender.” He reiterated the organization’s demands for a complete ceasefire and an end to all attacks, a full withdrawal from Lebanese territory, the return of displaced persons to their homes, reconstruction of the villages and the release of prisoners, as well as discussions regarding implementation of a “national defense strategy.” He said they would not relinquish their demands, even if it “meant confrontation and achieving one of the two glorious outcomes, victory or martyrdom” (al-Diyar, May 31, 2026).
  • Hussein al-Hajj Hassan, a member of the Hezbollah faction in the Lebanese Parliament, attacked the silence of the Lebanese leadership in response to remarks by American Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said the American administration was working with the Lebanese government to establish Lebanese army units capable of confronting and disarming Hezbollah. Al-Hajj Hassan called on the Lebanese government to reject the idea outright, claiming the Lebanese government had put itself in a predicament by agreeing to conduct negotiations with Israel under United States sponsorship (al-Manar, May 29, 2026). Subsequently, al-Hajj Hassan referred to a statement by American Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who said Hezbollah was an enemy of both Israel and Lebanon. Al-Hajj Hussein criticized the Lebanese government for not responding to the remarks and asked if the Lebanese leadership, through its silence, agreed (Lebanon Debate, June 7, 2026). His objective had been to embarrass the government and reinforce the narrative that it served American-Israeli interests and betrayed the idea of “the resistance” represented by Hezbollah.
  • Ihab Hamadeh, a member of the Hezbollah faction in the Lebanese Parliament, sharply criticized President Aoun, accusing him of being a traitor who did not represent the people. In a speech in Tamnine al-Fawqa in the Beqa’a Valley, referring to Aoun he said, “You do not represent the Lebanese, this Lebanese people is not your people. Your Excellency, are you a Lebanese president?” while claiming that Aoun was elected only through the imposition of the “Zionist-American project.” He added that “we knew with complete certainty that you were a traitor and would betray us,” and they had assumed from the outset that he would renege on any understanding reached with him because “it would be a continuation and completion of the Israeli war against us.” Referring to Aoun’s statement that Qassem did not represent the Lebanese, Hamadeh said Hezbollah’s parliamentary faction (Loyalty to the Resistance) had been one of the largest in the Lebanese Parliament since 1992 and that it, together with the Amal Movement, represented the Shi’ites, and therefore Aoun’s ignored the entire Shi’ite community in Lebanon (Hezbollah parliamentary bloc website, June 10, 2026).

• The same escalated rhetoric appeared in statements by unofficial figures close to Hezbollah. The most prominent among them was Ibrahim al-Amin, editor of the Hezbollah-affiliated daily al-Akhbar, who published a series of articles in recent weeks challenging the legitimacy of the president and prime minister to advance what he called “policies hostile to Hezbollah.” In one article, he asked, “Can the Lebanese sleep peacefully with such figures at the helm?!” while attacking positions which he said submitted to Israeli demands and demonstrated indifference to the destruction in south Lebanon. In addition, echoing Na’im Qassem’s remarks regarding the people’s right to take to the streets and call for the overthrow of the government, al-Amin said leaders who denied the right of “resistance” had a duty “to resign when the people take to the streets and demand their replacement” (al-Akhbar, June 5, 2026).
• In another article, al-Amin challenged the legitimacy of Lebanon’s political leadership, claiming Aoun’s appointment had been imposed on Lebanon through American-Saudi pressure and contrary to the position of a significant portion of the country’s political parties. He described President Aoun as “an illogical disease” with which Lebanon had to contend, and Prime Minister Salam as “an incapable activist” who deeply resented the “resistance” and lacked commitment to Lebanon (al-Akhbar, June 8, 2026).

     
Right: Graffiti accusing Aoun and Salam of treason and collaboration with Israel (Lebanon Debate, April 20, 2026). Left: A picture issued by a Hezbollah supporter in response to a Lebanese presidency post, with the Hebrew names “Yoav Shalom” for Salam and “Ze’ev Gideon” for Aoun (comment by Dalal Mansour on the Lebanese presidency X account, June 9, 2026)

• The Shi’ite Mufti Ahmad Qabalan, known for his close ties to Hezbollah but not considered an official spokesman, recently criticized the country’s leadership and challenged its legitimacy. He said the understandings reached by the negotiations between Lebanon and Israel would turn the Lebanese government into a kind of South Lebanon Army, whose sole role would be to build a security infrastructure serving “the interests of the Israeli security establishment…while the Lebanese government becomes an agent in the service of Israel.” He warned that the Lebanese authorities and the presidential palace were bringing Lebanon “to the brink of civil war” through the agreement (al-Manar, June 4, 2026). He published an open letter in which he claimed “we will not allow Lebanon to be abandoned into the hands of Israel and its agents” and “Lebanon’s sovereignty must be restored from those who have turned Lebanon into political property and a security instrument in the hands of the United States and Israel.” He added that “there is no greater betrayal than the betrayal of the government of ‘shame,’ which has placed Lebanon’s head on the table of Zionist Washington” (al-Akhbar, June 8, 2026).

^[1] Click https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en to subscribe and receive the ITIC's daily updates as well as its other publications.
^[2] Violence and terrorism to destroy the State of Israel.
^[3] See the April 2026 Amit Institute report, Renewal of Hostilities and Negotiations with Israel Increase Tension between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government
^[4] See the January 2026 Amit Institute report, The Completion of the First Phase of Hezbollah’s Disarmament
^[5] See the weekly Amit Institute reports, "Spotlight on Terrorist: Hezbollah and Lebanon."
^[6] See the April 2026 Amit Institute report, Renewal of Hostilities and Negotiations with Israel Increase Tension between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government and the May 2026 report, Hezbollah’s Unit 121

Related Articles