This is not a detailed account of what is happening to Hezbollah. The challenges weighing on it are many and difficult, even complex. The financial channels that used to flow money to it have begun to dry up due to the tightening of restrictions on foreign financial transfers on one hand, and the Lebanese customs control over land crossings, seaports, and Beirut Airport on the other.

Daily assassinations are also no easy challenge. It is no small matter that the party has lost four hundred young men since the ceasefire agreement fifteen months ago, without responding with a single bullet against Israel—a state that for decades built its strategy on the theory of deterrence balance.

Additionally, the party faces another challenge: the inability to begin reconstruction. Even the prefabricated houses that Qatar intended to send to Lebanon have been delayed until the ceasefire conditions announced by Israel are implemented. In the 2006 war, the party managed to rebuild what was destroyed within a relatively short period.

The future of the relationship with Iran, the party’s primary—and perhaps only remaining—ally, is also a source of concern. The trajectory of this relationship is uncertain, whether a war breaks out between the U.S. and Iran or if a rapprochement occurs between them. Where will the party stand in either scenario, and what will its fate be? Predicting this is far from easy. And then there is the loss of most of the party’s veteran leaders—another significant challenge.

While Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary-General, asserts, “There are no vacant positions in Hezbollah,” the reality is that no one can easily fill the historical gaps left by Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and his founding colleagues—from Fouad Chokor to Haytham Tabtabai to Mohammad Afif Al-Naboulsi, among others. These are individuals who cannot be readily replaced.

The decline of enthusiasm in Gaza and its acceptance of foreign armies on its soil is no easy challenge for the party, which went to great lengths to support Gaza and Hamas—only for Hamas to thank President Donald Trump for sponsoring its agreement with Israel! Yet the party’s greatest challenge remains the erosion of its prestige. Indeed, the party’s prestige has been shaken.

It is unable to confront the daily Israeli assaults on the south and its population. The party, which once believed it could shake Israel with the “push of a button,” how can it even begin to digest what is happening in the south today?

Amid all this, party leaders resort to harsh rhetoric grounded in high-stakes political discourse. But do phrases like “Don't even dream of it” reveal more embarrassment than strength?

What the party is experiencing these days is difficult. I believe the party needs a safe landing. It is still unclear “on which shore the party will dock.” It is uncertain where it will find its interests. Will it see them in the existence of a strong state that supports it, and that it supports in return, embracing and being embraced? Or will it see them in steadfastness on the issue of exclusive weapons, no matter the consequences, relying on the saying: “If we win, we are victorious; and if we are martyred, we are also victorious”? The coming days will reveal much. May God protect this country and its people.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.