Iran war: ordinary Israelis and Lebanese remain trapped by the false promises of their leaders

When the United States and Israel began their conflict against Iran, the Islamic Republic retaliated – as it has done in the past – by launching missile strikes against Israel as well as US military basis in the region. In addition, Iran targeted military and civilian locations across several Arab Gulf states.

Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, drew the country into the war on March 2 by responding to the US-Israeli attack on Iran with widespread rocket attacks on northern Israel. In turn, Israel bombarded Beirut’s southern suburbs, where Hezbollah has its power base, as well as sending troops across the border into southern Lebanon.

Lebanon’s prime minister, Nawaf Salam, reacted swiftly. He banned Hezbollah’s military wing calling its activities “illegal” and ordering the Lebanese security forces to “prevent any attacks originating from Lebanese territory”. Hezbollah ignored his call and continued to pound northern Israel, while engaging with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on the ground.

Both sides – the Israeli government and Hezbollah – have framed the use of military force as necessary to protect their respective communities. This is nothing new. When referring to Hezbollah during his speech at the 2024 annual gathering of the United Nations general assembly, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu explicitly made this link. “Israel has every right to remove this threat,” he declared, “and return our citizens to their homes safely, and that is exactly what we are doing”.

Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah (since assassinated in an Israeli strike on Beirut in September 2024) made a similar case of using military force to defend communities across Lebanon earlier that same year. After Israel assassinated Hamas’ deputy political leader, Salah Al-Arouri, in Beirut, in January that year he said that “we cannot keep silent about a violation of this seriousness because this means that all of our people will be exposed. All of our cities, villages, and public figures will be exposed.”

Two years on, both sides continue to justify the use of military force to defend their respective communities. But this claim does not bear scrutiny. As of June 2026, communities on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border remain highly insecure. This is despite the supposed US-brokered ceasefire between the two sides declared by Donald Trump on April 7.

Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel have resulted in civilian and military casualties as well as severe disruption to everyday life. The situation on the Lebanese side of the border is worse. Since Hezbollah drew Lebanon into the war between the US and Israel on the one side, and Iran on the other, the IDF has significantly expanded its ground offensive, reportedly resulting in more than 3,000 people killed and more than 1 million displaced.

Nevertheless, Nasrallah’s replacement as Hezbollah secretary general, Naim Qassem, has continued his predecessor’s aggressive line against Israel. Upon the onset of the current hostilities he pledged, on March 5, to “continue the fight against Israel”. In addition, he has rejected the Lebanese government’s order to refrain from attacks on Israel and refused to disarm.

In a statement on May 25 to mark Resistance and Liberation Day, the Lebanese holiday marking the anniversary of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Qassem said disarmament would destroy Lebanon’s “defensive capability and the capability of the resistance and its people, as a prelude to extermination”. He added: “Disarmament is extermination, and this is something we cannot accept.”

Ordinary lives under threat

Having clearly learned a lesson from Ukraine’s defence against Russia, Hezbollah has taken to using fibre-optic drones as their main weapon. Apart from the military and civilian casualties inflicted by these attacks, they severely threaten everyday life across the north of Israel, forcing workplaces and businesses to close and disrupting schools.

Overwhelmed and insecure, residents in northern Israel have described themselves as becoming “invisible” in the eyes of the Israeli government. A spokesperson for Lobby 1701, a northern Israel residents’ group named after UN Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the last Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and was supposed to ensure the demilitarisation of the region, told Israeli news outlet Ynet Global that people in northern Israel felt abandoned by their government: “Why does no one care even a little when a drone hits a children’s bus stop in Shomera, compared with if that same drone had, God forbid, hit a children’s bus stop in Tel Aviv?”

Hezbollah’s pledge to “defend” its communities through its military operations have clearly utterly failed and a majority of Lebanese people favour the group disarming. One Lebanese politician from a party which opposes Hezbollah, told journalists: “I have never seen a so-called resistance movement that is supposed to liberate the country from the occupier, do everything it can to give the occupier a pretext to send even more troops and create a buffer zone. If they want to commit suicide, let them go to their master in Tehran, far from Lebanon.”

Captives of conflict

Thus, ordinary Israelis and Lebanese remain captive to the false promises of their leaders. The continued reliance on military force has brought neither side greater security. Instead, it has deepened their vulnerability.

The only sustainable path out of this deadly cycle is a diplomatic and political settlement along the lines laid down in resolution 1701 – but with stronger security guarantees – which people on both sides of the border need and deserve.

Yet the government of Israel and Hezbollah’s leadership remain committed to rigid ideologies and political calculations – domestic and international – that prevent such an agreement. Meanwhile, their communities continue to bear the cost.

Amnon Aran does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.