Hezbollah has refused to give Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri assurances that it would stay out of a potential war between Iran and Israel and the United States, according to Lebanese political sources, underscoring the limits of Berri’s influence over the group’s military decisions.

The sources, who are close to Berri’s Development and Liberation parliamentary bloc, told Erem News that the speaker had sought to persuade Hezbollah against intervening in any regional confrontation. But the group has declined to make any advance commitment, leaving open the possibility that it could enter the conflict depending on how events unfold.

The refusal comes amid what the sources described as ambiguous messages from Tehran asserting Iran’s ability to defend itself against any attack without outside military assistance, but stopping short of explicitly asking Hezbollah to remain on the sidelines.

Hezbollah officials have told interlocutors that they “have not given and will not give guarantees to anyone” that the group would stay out of a war, the sources said. Any decision, they added, would depend on military and political developments, including Israel’s actions.

The position contradicts media reports that Berri had secured a fresh commitment from Hezbollah not to provide military support to Iran.

Rather than deciding in advance whether to intervene, Hezbollah is seeking to preserve all its options, the sources said, and is unwilling to accept commitments that could constrain its response to developments on the battlefield.

Berri's efforts to avert a new conflict

Berri is seeking to dissuade Hezbollah from joining any potential confrontation, fearing that the opening of a Lebanese front could trigger a large-scale Israeli offensive at a time when the country is still struggling with the consequences of previous fighting, widespread displacement and the challenges of reconstruction, according to the sources.

Hezbollah’s leadership, however, maintains that its military decisions are its own and that no definitive position can be taken without assessing the nature of any attack on Iran, the potential scope of the confrontation and Israel’s actions toward Lebanon.

The refusal to provide guarantees does not necessarily indicate that Hezbollah wants another war, the sources stressed. In its political contacts, the group has emphasized its commitment to civil peace and its desire to avoid destabilizing Lebanon’s domestic situation.

The dispute nevertheless highlights the limits of Berri’s ability to influence the military calculations of a key ally, despite his role in managing contacts with the Lebanese presidency, government and foreign parties.

Berri, a veteran political figure who heads the Development and Liberation bloc, has long played a central role in Lebanon’s political system and in coordination among the country’s main Shiite political forces. But the latest exchanges suggest that his efforts to prevent escalation may not be enough to secure a commitment from Hezbollah on a decision with potentially far-reaching consequences for Lebanon.

Tehran signals confidence but makes no explicit request

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh told figures from Lebanon’s Shiite political duopoly during recent contacts in Beirut that Tehran was strong enough to confront threats and attacks without outside military assistance, the sources said.

They denied, however, that Khatibzadeh had asked Hezbollah to refrain from intervening or told his interlocutors that Iran had decided to keep Lebanon’s front out of any future confrontation.

The distinction is significant given media reports of Iranian reassurances to Lebanon that Tehran did not want to draw Hezbollah into another war, particularly because of the imbalance of power between the group and Israel.

According to the sources, the message conveyed by the Iranian official was limited to an assertion of Iran’s ability to defend itself. It did not address the military options Hezbollah might pursue if hostilities broke out.

The absence of an explicit request to stay out of the conflict leaves a key question unresolved: whether Tehran’s confidence in its own military capabilities will translate into restraint by its most powerful regional ally, or whether Hezbollah will ultimately make its own assessment of the confrontation.

For Berri, the lack of a clear Iranian message offers little assurance that Lebanon can avoid being drawn into a wider war.

A lingering crisis of trust

The latest exchanges come against the backdrop of a previous breakdown in trust between Berri and Hezbollah over the group’s military decisions.

The tension dates back to March, when Hezbollah launched rockets toward Israel following the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, despite accounts that the group’s secretary-general, Naim Qassem, had previously pledged not to intervene.

According to those accounts, the rocket launch took place without prior coordination with Berri, leaving the parliament speaker facing the consequences of a military decision he had not anticipated. The episode raised questions about whether Hezbollah’s political leadership could deliver on its assurances to its Lebanese allies.

Sources close to Berri’s bloc insist that no new commitment has been made in the current round of contacts. They also say Hezbollah officials reject the idea that the group’s stated preference for avoiding escalation should be treated as a binding pledge not to participate in a future war.

The stakes are particularly high for Lebanon, where another confrontation could trigger a new wave of mass displacement and deepen the economic and social hardship left by previous conflicts.

For Berri, preventing a renewed war is therefore not simply a matter of managing political differences with Hezbollah. It is also an effort to shield a country already burdened by the consequences of conflict from another potentially devastating escalation.

Dispute over explosives adds to tensions

Berri’s concerns extend beyond the possibility of a regional war.

The sources said he had also expressed displeasure with Hezbollah over the group’s public acknowledgment that it owned a shipment of explosives seized by Lebanese authorities in Dahr al-Baydar.

Berri would have preferred that Hezbollah refrain from publicly claiming the shipment and allow the matter to be handled through judicial and political channels, the sources said.

The public acknowledgment instead heightened pressure on the government and security agencies, placing them in a more difficult position and adding another sensitive issue to an already complicated political landscape.

The disagreement reflects differences between Hezbollah and Berri’s camp over how to handle politically sensitive matters, particularly when public statements risk escalating tensions. It does not necessarily signal that the dispute will develop into an open political confrontation between the two allies.

Still, the episode adds to the broader strain in their relationship, as Berri seeks to contain the consequences of Hezbollah’s decisions while the group maintains its autonomy over military and other sensitive matters.

Who has the final say on war and peace?

The question of who ultimately controls Hezbollah’s decision to enter a war lies at the heart of the dispute, according to Lebanese political writer and analyst Ali Hamadeh.

Speaking to Erem News, Hamadeh said the decision on war and peace rested not with Hezbollah but with Iran.

He argued that Hezbollah’s refusal to provide guarantees to Berri raised a fundamental question that went beyond a disagreement between political allies: who has the final authority to decide whether the Lebanese front will be opened?

If Hezbollah’s military leadership is guided by the calculations of a broader regional confrontation, political reassurances alone cannot rule out its participation, Hamadeh said.

That uncertainty is especially pronounced if the assessments of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps differ from the messages conveyed through Tehran’s diplomatic channels, he added.

Hamadeh pointed to the events of March as evidence of the limits of political contacts in controlling decisions on the ground. The episode, he said, demonstrated the difficulty of relying on assurances from political interlocutors when military calculations may be shaped by wider regional considerations.

The real test, Hamadeh argued, will not be what Hezbollah tells its Lebanese allies but whether the group can refuse to become involved in a war that Iran’s strategic calculations might dictate, even if participation runs counter to Lebanon’s interests.

For now, Hezbollah’s refusal to offer advance guarantees leaves Berri without the assurance he has been seeking and Lebanon exposed to the possibility of being drawn into a wider regional conflict.