Given the precedents, any diplomatic breakthrough benefiting Iran or progress in Lebanese‑Israeli negotiations could embolden Hizbullah and increase the likelihood of a similar confrontation with the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam.

By Hezy Laing

Hezbollah’s deputy chief Naim Qassem delivered a televised speech on May 24, 2026, marking “Resistance and Liberation Day,” and his remarks represented one of his most confrontational public statements to date.

Speaking on the eve of the anniversary of May 25, 2000, when Israel ended its 18‑year military presence in southern Lebanon, Qassem used the occasion to escalate his rhetoric sharply.

Amid Lebanon’s deep internal turmoil and the ongoing conflict with Israel, he concentrated on internal political threats, an uncompromising refusal to disarm, and his ideological framing of Israel’s long‑term fate.

His comments followed the Lebanese government’s recent declaration that Hezbollah’s military wing is illegal and its decision to pursue direct negotiations with Israel in Washington.

Qassem responded by issuing severe warnings to Beirut’s leadership, insisting that state officials “have no authority to act however they wish.”

He suggested that the Lebanese public had the right to overthrow the government, accusing it of enabling an “Israeli‑American plan” aimed at dismantling national institutions.

He cautioned the authorities against adopting positions contrary to the “resistance” or engaging in direct diplomacy with the United States or Israel, insisting that only indirect channels were acceptable.

Qassem vowed that Hezbollah “will confront with full force anyone who confronts it,” adding that any government unable to defend sovereignty “should step aside.”

Rejecting growing domestic and international pressure to surrender Hezbollah’s weapons, he portrayed disarmament as a plot designed to destroy the movement entirely.

He argued that transferring all weapons to the state was an “Israeli project” meant to leave Lebanon exposed and defenseless.

Qassem urged Beirut to halt direct talks with Israel and instead seek a unified national position, claiming that disarmament would lead to Lebanon’s destruction, occupation, and loss of its natural resources.

He framed the confrontation as existential, declaring that Hezbollah was committed to “victory or martyrdom” regardless of casualties or devastation.

Qassem accused Lebanese officials of asking Hezbollah to “help disarm itself so Israel can enter, kill its fighters, and displace Lebanese civilians,” insisting that surrendering weapons amounted to “self‑eradication.”

He maintained that the current conflict “targets our very existence” and repeated that Hezbollah “will not yield, even if the entire world stands against it.”

He claimed that Hezbollah’s drones would continue monitoring Israeli forces in southern Lebanon and pledged to fight Israel and any Lebanese faction aligned with it.

He also challenged the government to show what it had accomplished during the 18‑month ceasefire between 2024 and 2026, saying that if it had failed, it should resign.

Qassem also condemned what he described as an “assault on al‑Qard al‑Hassan,” Hezbollah’s main financial arm, portraying efforts to shut it down as an attack on hundreds of thousands of low‑income Lebanese.

He labeled the pressure campaign an “Israeli‑American operation” and insisted that new U.S. sanctions on Hezbollah and Amal Movement officials would not weaken the organization.

Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs noted that Qassem avoided any reference to Israel’s renewed military presence in southern Lebanon, which followed Hezbollah’s involvement as a “support front” for Iran.

Instead, he attempted to project confidence, accusing Israel of pursuing a “Greater Israel” agenda while asserting that its decline had already begun.

He highlighted Hezbollah’s use of FPV drones, claiming they had left Israel “disoriented.”

He linked the future of the conflict to broader diplomatic developments, expressing hope that ongoing U.S.–Iran talks mediated by Pakistan would produce a comprehensive agreement that includes a formal end to hostilities in Lebanon.

Qassem’s address revealed a leadership that feels besieged yet remains confrontational, signaling that Hizbullah would risk Lebanon’s political stability rather than relinquish its weapons.

This posture was reflected on the streets of Beirut, where Hezbollah fighters fired celebratory gunshots in the Dahiya district despite army warnings.

His tone evoked memories of May 7, 2008, when Hezbollah fighters seized parts of West Beirut and the Druze Mountain after the government of Fouad Siniora moved against the group’s private telecommunications network.

Given this precedent, any diplomatic breakthrough benefiting Iran or progress in Lebanese‑Israeli negotiations could embolden Hezbollah and increase the likelihood of a similar confrontation with the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam.