Just weeks ago, all eyes were on Lebanon. As the US reported Israel and Hezbollah were close to a ceasefire, Western politicians saw this as the first step toward peace in the Middle East. However, as rebels storm into the Syrian capital and Iran abandons its sworn allies, the region now teeters on the brink of a new and even deadlier conflict.
What the West hails as a historic ceasefire in Lebanon may instead mark the beginning of one of the most volatile chapters in the Middle East’s history, threatening to unravel alliances, ignite new conflicts, and plunge the region into chaos.
The Agreement
The ceasefire itself represents an unlikely diplomatic success. Mediated by the White House and the French government, the agreement brought historic enemies, Israel and Hezbollah, to the negotiating table to end a year-long war and Israel’s subsequent invasion. As stipulated by the agreement, both Israeli and Hezbollah forces are to withdraw from Southern Lebanon, where the Lebanese army and UN peacekeepers will create a buffer zone.
The war has disproportionately devastated Hezbollah. Israeli bombardment inflicted significant losses to Hezbollah’s manpower, military supplies, and infrastructure. Most of its top leadership has also been killed in the fighting. With the ceasefire in place, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have compelled Hezbollah to abandon its commitment to continue fighting until Israel ends the war in Gaza.
Cracks in the Agreement
While both sides may have short-term incentives to agree to a ceasefire, these incentives disappear once Israel and Hezbollah regain their strength. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged that the need to resupply his army was a primary factor in ending the war. Similarly, Hezbollah also needed a truce to regroup following its losses. Hezbollah’s supply lines to Iran, the group’s patron, were severed during the invasion, meaning the militant group lacked the ability to resupply its war effort.
Despite the need to resupply, both Israel and Hezbollah have a strong interest in breaking the ceasefire. The successful invasion of Lebanon enabled Netanyahu to recover much of the popularity and support he lost after Israel’s devastating security breach two years earlier, on October 7th. However, with far-right ministers in his inner circle expressing anger over the ceasefire, Netanyahu will feel pressured to resume hostilities to retain their support.
A retreat from southern Lebanon is also unlikely for Hezbollah. The south serves as the group’s power base and stronghold of local support. With Lebanese opposition figures challenging Hezbollah’s influence in the state, experts predict the group is likely to reassert control over the south to secure its power.
As Israel and Hezbollah begin to resupply their armies, both sides are already firing rockets over the border and trading accusations of ceasefire violation. Just a week after its signing, the agreement appears to be hanging by a thread.
Iran’s Axis of Resistance
To understand the true significance of the ceasefire, one must first look to Iran. The Iranian Islamic Republic, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is Israel’s sworn enemy. It has promised numerous times to topple Netahyahu’s government. To do so, Iran funds and supports its ‘Axis of Resistance,’ a network of Islamic militias designated by Western States as terrorists. The Axis includes Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and multiple militias in Yemen and Iraq. In response to Iran’s involvement in the wars in Lebanon and Gaza, Israel has launched numerous air strikes against the country, inflicting heavy damage on Iran’s military capabilities.
A core tenet of Iran’s Axis is a belief in “unity on all fronts” – the idea that all members will fight together to defeat Israel and its allies. However, the damage to Iran and its strongest ally, Hezbollah, pushed Khamenei to support the ceasefire. This truce, therefore, fractures the unity that underpinned Iran’s network of allies, as it breaks Hezbollah’s commitment to Hamas and, with Khamenie’s backing, also undermines Iran’s support for Hezbollah. In response, Hezbollah and Hamas members have voiced their discontent and expressed the sense that the Axis has failed them.
The fracturing of Axis unity has dire implications for the entire Middle East. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Lebanon’s northern neighbor, Syria.
A Renewed Syrian Civil War
On the same day as the ceasefire, Syrian rebels reignited a decades-long civil war against Iran-backed dictator Bashar al-Assad. The timing of this offensive was no coincidence.
Al-Assad relied on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah militants to control his territory. In return, the groups used Syria to transfer weapons and stage attacks on Israel. In recent months, the IDF responded by conducting almost daily raids on Assad’s military forces, weakening the regime and its allies.
As the ceasefire began, Syrian rebels saw this truce as a sign that Iran’s support for its allies was waning, presenting an opportunity to finally topple Assad. This calculation paid off. Iran and Hezbollah, deterred by the costs of backing a failing regime, were unwilling to mount a significant counter-offensive to prop up al-Assad. In a lighting offensive, rebels captured the capital, Damascus, ending a 13-year civil war in less than two weeks.
From Ceasefire to Regime Change: International Implications
Catalyzed by the ceasefire, regime change in Syria is already plunging the Middle East into chaos and uncertainty, creating a power vacuum that major powers are seeking to fill. As al-Assad flees, Russia risks losing its strategic connection to the Near East. Similarly, the loss of al-Assad’s government has been described as “a devastating blow to Iran’s foreign policy.” Without al-Assad, Iran could lose its lifeline to allies in the Eastern Mediterranean, significantly diminishing its regional influence. As al-Assad fell, Khamenei faced a familiar choice: continue supporting an ally with a slim chance of victory or accept another ideological defeat for the Axis. Once again, he has chosen the latter.
As these states lose their grip on Syria, other powers move in. Thought to be destroyed, ISIS is already regaining territory in Eastern Syria in the wake of rebel attacks. Turkey, the primary backer of Northern Syria’s rebels, has also begun asserting its influence in the region. Turkey has aspirations to become a larger player in the Middle East and has long been angered by Syria’s unwillingness to cooperate with its ambitions. A rebel victory in Syria will give Turkey a major ally in the region that it can use to challenge Iran and Israel for hegemony in the Middle East.
As major powers and terrorist groups seek to capitalize on the new Syrian regime, the loss of Iran’s influence threatens to dramatically reshape the balance of power in the Middle East.
Conclusion
While the West hails the ceasefire as a step toward peace in the Middle East, it has instead exposed the cracks inside Iran’s weakened alliance, plunging the region into deeper turmoil and uncertainty. Neither Israel nor Hezbollah have significant incentives to abide by the ceasefire any longer than it takes them to rearm. In the meantime, many expect the war in Gaza to escalate as Netanyahu attempts to appease right-wing politicians angry with his ceasefire. With Hezbollah sidelined, Israel is also preparing to intensify its conflict with an increasingly desperate Iran, which risks dragging the Middle East into a nuclear conflict.
The ceasefire, which fractured Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance,’ emboldened Syrian rebels to overthrow Iran’s ally. As these rebels celebrate victory, Iran is bracing to prevent this upheaval from spreading across its Axis to allies in Iraq and Yemen.
In pursuing peace talks, Biden and Western politicians made a difficult decision between the instability of a fractured Islamic alliance or prolonged war with Hezbollah. However, as the ceasefire continues to falter, the Middle East may have to face the worst of both worlds. At the moment, only one thing seems certain: peacemaking in Lebanon is only the beginning of a much longer, deadlier war for the future of the Middle East.
Edited by Malin Braendeland & Margaux Zani
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by Wallup