Comments

You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Conceding in Order to Preserve: Hezbollah’s Possible 'Hierarchy of Concessions' in Southern Lebanon

2026-08-13

by Dana Polak

[IsraelAlma] This week, it was reported in Lebanon that Hezbollah divides its infrastructure in the south of the country into three levels of importance, according to their operational value and its ability to replace them should it be forced to relinquish them.

This division may shed light on a possible course of action by Hezbollah aimed at countering the implementation of the agreement between Israel and Lebanon: creating a hierarchy of concessions that would allow it to hand over certain assets to the Lebanese Armed Forces, while at the same time preserving the infrastructure essential to its continued existence as a military force in the south.

Based on our understanding of the relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Armed Forces, if such a handover takes place, it will only be possible as a result of a Hezbollah decision, and not because of an initiative or demand by the Lebanese Armed Forces.

True. It’s long been clear that, like Pakistan and the Gaza Strip, Lebanon has become a terror group (or in Pakistan’s case, an army) with a country attached, rather than the other way round. And like Hamas, Hezbollah couldn’t care less about the fate of the civilian human shields around them. In fact, the more civilians harmed, the better the propaganda payoff as far as they are concerned. The Pakistani army prefers their civilians to be orderly and get out of the way instead of rioting underfoot, but since their country is Pakistan they’re out of luck on that count.

According to the report, the lowest level consists of assets that Hezbollah is capable of relinquishing at a relatively low operational cost: small positions, limited weapons depots, observation posts, and facilities that were already exposed during the war and have lost their importance. Handing them over to the Lebanese Armed Forces may allow the organization to create a false impression of unwillingness to confront the Lebanese army (which is regarded as a consensus institution),

What is a consensus institution?

without significantly impairing Hezbollah’s core capabilities. In all likelihood, although these assets contain only limited and basic weaponry, it will be returned to Hezbollah through a “revolving door” arrangement.

The second level includes ammunition depots, maintenance and supply facilities, staging points, launch positions, and short underground infrastructure. Hezbollah may be willing to relinquish some of these assets after removing their contents. In other words, transferring a site to the Lebanese army does not necessarily indicate that the capability it housed has been dismantled: the equipment can be relocated while preserving the option of restoring the site or establishing an alternative in the future. Alternatively, through the “revolving door” method, the site may later be “returned” to Hezbollah.

Or Israel can strip it and blow it up, as they have been. The Lebanese complain about destroyed houses and other infrastructure, but when the alternative is to leave it available for reacquisition and reuse…