After Nasrallah’s death, the Middle East braces itself

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The writer is the former UK ambassador to Lebanon and foreign policy adviser to three prime ministers. His latest novel is ‘The Assassin’

Hassan Nasrallah’s death is a seismic moment for the Middle East, increasing the danger of a conflict between Israel and Iran that would be devastating for civilians and send tremors far beyond the region.

For decades, the Hizbollah Secretary General may have been hidden from public view, but he was present in every discussion. As Ambassador in Beirut I remember many evenings gathered around the radio, waiting to hear whether his latest speech — in response to an assassination or military strike — would dial the danger up or down. It was often the latter, but always with the menace of violence to come. The most powerful man in the country relished the theatre of it, the ability to keep us all guessing. 

Nasrallah was a malign genius. He built a formidable fighting machine, backed by his sophisticated public communications skills and the soft power — schools, hospitals, social care, infrastructure — that meant that his control of southern Lebanon was not only based on fear. He was also able to ensure, through assassinations, street muscle and a deft ability to divide and rule, that no Lebanese government could survive without his acquiescence. And that most could barely function even with it.     

The region now braces itself for the next decisions made by the hardliners in Iran and Israel. Many are fighting for their own survival, not the interests of the people they claim to represent.

In New York last week, Iran had signalled hard to western diplomats that it did not want to escalate, leaving Hizbollah seething that they were being abandoned. Iran’s major strategic fear, of a wider normalisation between Israel and the Gulf, has for now been buried in the catastrophic conflict following Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7 last year. Some in Tehran think that they should not interrupt their enemy in the process of making a mistake, arguing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has isolated his country for a decade and made inevitable the outcome he has fought throughout his turbulent career: a Palestinian state.  

Meanwhile, Israeli decisions will continue to be driven by internal politics rather than international pressure. Netanyahu has sought to move the story on from domestic and international criticism of the conduct of the Gaza war. Israel has hit Hizbollah very hard, physically and psychologically. Some in Tel Aviv are arguing that a ground invasion — what hardliners call “mowing the grass” — could further degrade or destroy Hizbollah. But calmer voices recognise the immense damage that more massive civilian casualties would do to Israel’s reputation. A ground invasion would allow Hizbollah to rebuild the popularity and confidence that has drained away because of their actions against critics in Lebanon and in propping up Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. 

For the Lebanese there will be mixed emotions. Parts of the community will celebrate the removal of a man who has for years kept a brutal grip on the country. But there is also widespread horror at the loss of civilian life, and trepidation at whether Hizbollah, which will not remain leaderless for long, now has no choice but to unleash whatever remains of its arsenal towards Israel, bringing a further bloody cycle of retribution. 

Diplomats have talked for months of the danger of war between Israel and Hizbollah. We are now past that point. There had been genuine confidence in New York this week, following the UK’s swift call for a ceasefire and the statement from US, European and Arab leaders pressing for a 21-day cessation of hostilities. But hope ebbed away as Netanyahu shook a public fist at the world from the UN podium, and then raised the stakes so dramatically. The mood is now despondent. 

Yet those working hardest to pull the region back from the brink know what is needed. First, the implementation of UN resolutions and consistent pressure to stop the escalation. Then to get the Lebanese army alongside the UN on the Israel/Lebanon border, and the return of Lebanese state — not Iran or Hizbollah — authority to south Lebanon. A Gaza ceasefire agreement that gets the Israeli hostages out and aid in remains critical: this could create the conditions for the two-state solution that Hamas, Hizbollah and Israeli hawks want to bury. Security, justice and opportunity can only be achieved through coexistence, not the zero sum cycle of fear and destruction of which Nasrallah was such a part.

Above all, despite the growing feeling of impotence and despair, the international community must now — unequivocally and consistently — put protection of civilians from death or displacement at the heart of its strategy. The casualty numbers are staggering. The humanitarian community is already underfunded, overstretched and under attack. 

Nasrallah lived by the sword. I have heard today from many friends across the region who lost relatives, friends or political leaders as a result of his decisions. The emotions, of those who mourn or celebrate, are raw. The fear of what lies ahead is real. In death as in life, Nasrallah keeps his enemies and allies guessing.