Lammy’s Call for a Ceasefire Empowers Hezbollah

UK’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s call for an immediate ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel at the UN Security Council session being held in New York is emblematic of a broader misunderstanding of the dynamics that have kept Lebanon in a cycle of instability and violence. While the desire to halt bloodshed is understandable, Lammy’s approach fails to account for the strategic realities on the ground and overlooks the long-term consequences of empowering Hezbollah through a premature ceasefire.

Hezbollah, a powerful military and political force in Lebanon, is not simply a local militia but an Iranian terrorist proxy deeply embedded within the broader geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East. Its actions cannot be viewed in isolation from Tehran’s broader ambitions to expand its influence across the region. By calling for a ceasefire, Labour is advocating for a policy that historically plays into Hezbollah’s hands. Time and again, ceasefires have provided Hezbollah with crucial windows to regroup, rearm, and consolidate its control in Lebanon without ever addressing the root causes of the conflict or the threat they pose to Israel and regional stability.

Strategically, an immediate ceasefire does little to facilitate the disruption of Hezbollah’s military capabilities or its grip on Lebanon’s fragile political system. Hezbollah has long used periods of calm to replenish its arsenal and entrench itself further in Lebanese institutions, cementing its role as the de facto authority in southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut. This growing power has turned Lebanon into a virtual Iranian satellite, much to the detriment of both Lebanese sovereignty and regional peace. Lammy’s position overlooks this reality, failing to provide a long-term solution to Hezbollah’s stranglehold over Lebanon and its people.

Moreover, while calls for ceasefires are often framed as humanitarian necessities, they must also be evaluated from a military perspective. Israel, having faced repeated rocket attacks and incursions from Hezbollah, is fighting to neutralize a clear and present danger. A ceasefire at this stage, without ensuring Hezbollah’s disarmament and further weakening its infrastructure, will leave the group free to replace its first line of leadership and poised to strike again in the future. Such a ceasefire would be tantamount to a strategic victory for Hezbollah and, by extension, Iran.

Lammy’s position also reflects a broader European tendency to treat conflicts like these through the lens of moral equivalence, as though Hezbollah, a recognized terrorist organization, and Israel, a sovereign democracy defending its citizens, are equal parties in this war. This misjudgment fuels the cycle of violence. Until Hezbollah is disarmed or fundamentally weakened, any ceasefire will only be temporary, offering a fleeting respite before the inevitable resumption of hostilities.

Rather than advocating for a ceasefire, the UK and its allies should focus on diplomatic efforts that pressure Hezbollah and its backers in Tehran. The ultimate goal must be to dismantle Hezbollah’s military capabilities while empowering Lebanon’s legitimate political institutions. Ceasefires that leave Hezbollah intact only prolong the suffering of the Lebanese people and the insecurity of the region.

Lammy’s position is not just naïve—it is strategically dangerous. Until the underlying military and political issues are addressed, a ceasefire serves only as a Band-Aid over a festering wound, delaying the inevitable and empowering one of the most destabilizing forces in the Middle East.