- Hezbollah’s silence is not merely an omission; it is a strategic signal, and arguably a major victory for Israel’s counterterrorism and regional deterrence policy.
- Hezbollah’s leadership, particularly Hassan Nasrallah, is likely navigating this complex landscape with caution.
- The current silence might very well be the eye of the storm, a pause before the next phase of asymmetric retaliation.
- Hezbollah’s silence in the ongoing Israel-Iran confrontation is not merely a tactical delay—it is a strategic moment.
As the Israel-Iran conflict unfolds in June 2025, an unexpected development has emerged: the conspicuous silence of Hezbollah. For a group that has consistently framed itself as the “Resistance Axis” against Israel, its current inaction—both militarily and rhetorically—marks a significant departure from past patterns. This silence is not merely an omission; it is a strategic signal, and arguably a major victory for Israel’s counterterrorism and regional deterrence policy.
The Hezbollah-Iran Nexus: A Historical Context
Hezbollah, founded in the 1980s with support from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has long served as Tehran’s most potent non-state proxy in the Levant. Its operational capabilities, combined with a sophisticated information war strategy and deep entrenchment in Lebanese politics, have made Hezbollah a formidable adversary for Israel. Traditionally, any Israeli action against Iranian interests—whether in Syria, Lebanon, or directly against Iranian nuclear or military assets—would be met with a calibrated response by Hezbollah, either through cross-border attacks, rocket fire, or media escalation. However, the events of June 2025 have defied this template. In the wake of Israeli strikes on Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions in Syria and the targeted sabotage of missile transport infrastructure allegedly linked to Iran’s Quds Force, Hezbollah has remained strikingly mute. No statement of condemnation, no military response, and not even symbolic gestures of solidarity have been issued. This strategic passivity raises critical questions: Has Israel succeeded in silencing Hezbollah? If so, what does this mean for the future of regional deterrence and asymmetric warfare?
Israel’s Counterterrorism Doctrine: Quiet Successes
Over the last decade, Israel’s counterterrorism strategy has undergone significant recalibration. Moving beyond reactive military strikes, Israel has embraced a proactive “Octopus Doctrine,” targeting not just the tentacles of Iran’s proxy network but also its command and logistics hubs. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant have emphasised disrupting the “Shiite Crescent” that extends from Tehran to Beirut, using pre-emptive strikes, cyber warfare, and psychological operations. Israel’s success in detecting and neutralising Hezbollah’s underground precision missile factories in southern Lebanon in 2023, its expanded collaboration with regional partners like Greece and Cyprus, and its aggressive campaign in Syria have cumulatively degraded Hezbollah’s operational flexibility. Israeli intelligence has penetrated Hezbollah’s networks deeper than ever before, allowing for real-time targeting and strategic disruption. The current silence, then, may reflect Hezbollah’s recognition of the risks involved in opening another front. It knows that any miscalculation could provoke a full-scale Israeli assault—an engagement it is currently ill-prepared for, given Lebanon’s crumbling economy, internal political dissent, and waning public support for another destructive war.
Israel’s success in detecting and neutralising Hezbollah’s underground precision missile factories in southern Lebanon in 2023, its expanded collaboration with regional partners like Greece and Cyprus, and its aggressive campaign in Syria have cumulatively degraded Hezbollah’s operational flexibility.
Iran’s Restraint and Hezbollah’s Cost-Benefit Calculus
Equally critical to understanding Hezbollah’s silence is Tehran’s strategic recalibration. Iran, reeling under severe sanctions, domestic unrest following the 2024 protests, and the need to preserve its nuclear negotiations with Russia and China, may have signalled to Hezbollah to refrain from provocation. In the wake of Israeli cyber and kinetic operations that targeted Iran’s drone manufacturing plants in Isfahan earlier this month, Tehran has shown more interest in asymmetric survival than confrontation. Hezbollah’s leadership, particularly Hassan Nasrallah, is likely navigating this complex landscape with caution. After all, Hezbollah’s military engagement would not only provoke Israeli retaliation but also invite international scrutiny at a time when Lebanon is on the brink of state collapse. The prospect of war could further alienate its shrinking support base, especially among Lebanon’s struggling Shia population. According to Al Arabiya, several Lebanese commentators and analysts have pointed to Hezbollah’s silence as evidence of a shifting calculus, where regional survival now trumps ideological posturing. This reluctance to escalate is thus not a sign of weakness but a pragmatic recognition of the new strategic environment shaped by Israel’s deterrent capabilities and regional alliances.
A Strategic Victory—But Not a Permanent One
While the current state of play undeniably reflects a strategic victory for Israel, it must be viewed with tempered optimism. Hezbollah’s silence does not equate to its permanent dormancy. The group has a long history of strategic patience, often retreating temporarily to regroup, rearm, and reframe its tactics. One cannot discount the possibility of a future, more calculated retaliation—perhaps not overt, but through deniable proxy engagements, cyberattacks, or coordinated operations with other Iran-backed groups like the Houthis or the militias in Iraq and Syria. The current silence might very well be the eye of the storm, a pause before the next phase of asymmetric retaliation. Israel must, therefore, avoid the trap of complacency. Strategic restraint by adversaries can often lull a state into believing that deterrence is permanent. But deterrence is always conditional—it requires constant reinforcement. As noted by The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Israel must continue to monitor Hezbollah’s logistical pipelines, intercept financial flows from Iran, and use regional forums like the Negev Forum and Abraham Accords to diplomatically isolate the Hezbollah-Iran nexus.
Deterrence is always conditional—it requires constant reinforcement.
Decoupling Hezbollah from Iran: The Long-Term Imperative
Perhaps the most significant challenge and opportunity ahead for Israeli policymakers is the prospect of decoupling Hezbollah from its Iranian patron. While complete ideological divorce is unlikely, Israel can exploit the growing friction between Hezbollah’s domestic priorities and Iran’s regional ambitions. By supporting alternative Shia voices in Lebanon, investing in reconstruction projects through third-party NGOs, and enhancing the international narrative that portrays Hezbollah as a destabiliser rather than a resistance movement, Israel can widen the cracks in the Tehran-Beirut axis. Additionally, pressure on Iran—economic, diplomatic, and cyber—has an indirect effect on Hezbollah’s capabilities, a dynamic that must be sustained.
Finally, Israel should deepen its strategic engagement with global and regional actors—particularly Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—to present a united front against Iranian expansionism and its proxies. Multilateral forums could be used to highlight Hezbollah’s violation of international norms and its role in stalling Lebanon’s return to stability.
Conclusion: A Pause Worth Studying, Not Celebrating
Hezbollah’s silence in the ongoing Israel-Iran confrontation is not merely a tactical delay—it is a strategic moment. It offers Israel the rare opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of its counterterrorism doctrine, recalibrate its regional posture, and prepare for a post-Iran-centric Hezbollah strategy. But this moment should not be mistaken for the end of a threat. Like all insurgent groups with deep-rooted ideology and foreign patronage, Hezbollah’s dormancy is likely provisional. Israel must remain vigilant, continue undermining the Hezbollah-Iran linkage, and invest in long-term strategies that outlive short-term victories. A strategic pause is a space to rethink, re-strengthen, and reinvest—not to relax. Israel has won this round, but the game is far from over.
Dr. Nanda Kishor M. S. is an Associate Professor at the Department of Politics and International Studies, Pondicherry University, and former Head of Geopolitics and International Relations at Manipal University. His expertise spans India’s foreign policy, conflict resolution, international law, and national security, with several publications and fellowships from institutions including UNHCR, Brookings, and DAAD. The views expressed are the author’s own.
Frank Rausan Pereira 
Shashank Pandey 
Pranav S