Hezbollah had been preparing a far-reaching political and security plan to reshape Lebanon’s internal balance of power once the current conflict subsided, but recent developments—chiefly Iran’s ceasefire that excludes Lebanon—have disrupted those calculations and exposed the group to mounting pressure, Nidaa Al-Watan newspaper revealed. 

According to political assessments in Beirut, Hezbollah’s strategy was built on the assumption that the war would end with terms favorable to its position, allowing it to declare a victory and translate that outcome into domestic gains. Central to this plan was a swift move to overturn the existing political order and strengthen its control over state institutions.

Senior Hezbollah figures, including Mahmoud Qomati and Wafiq Safa, had signaled that the group was preparing for a decisive internal shift. Statements from within its leadership, coupled with messaging from its political and media apparatus, pointed to preparations for what amounted to a political takeover of the government once hostilities ended, the newspaper noted. 

The plan extended beyond pressuring Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s government. Hezbollah and its allies issued escalating warnings that included threats to bring down the government and, in some instances, cautions directed at President Joseph Aoun, indicating that the presidency itself could face political consequences if it did not align with the group’s direction.

As part of this strategy, Hezbollah sought to broaden its political cover by engaging Marada Movement leader Sleiman Frangieh as a Christian ally, signaling cross-sectarian backing for its agenda. The move was seen as an effort to legitimize a potential power shift and ensure that the groundwork for a post-war political transformation was firmly in place.

According to the report, the objective was to deliver a rapid internal blow that would upend Lebanon’s political balance and improve Hezbollah’s leverage in anticipated negotiations, particularly in light of reported U.S.-Iran contacts in Islamabad. The underlying calculation was that reasserting dominance over Lebanese decision-making would strengthen the group’s hand at the negotiating table.

To that end, Hezbollah mobilized its political, security, and military networks in preparation for a coordinated shift. The plan relied on a favorable regional outcome, specifically, an understanding that Iran’s ceasefire would encompass Lebanon, effectively freezing the battlefield and allowing Hezbollah to pivot inward.

However, that assumption proved flawed. U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed that the ceasefire does not apply to Lebanon, a position Israel had already signaled, and one that Iran was reportedly aware of. The exclusion left Hezbollah exposed to continued Israeli strikes targeting its military infrastructure.

The fallout has been significant. Instead of moving to consolidate power, Hezbollah has found itself under intensified military pressure and in a state of strategic uncertainty. Beirut and other areas experienced some of the most violent attacks since the conflict began, while Iran limited its response to political statements, offering no direct intervention to alter the situation on the Lebanese front.