Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Hezbollah beat on their chests as a sign of mourning during a mass rally to mark Ashoura, commemorating the martyrdom of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson Hussein.
The Lebanese government wants Hezbollah to disarm – will it?
On Wednesday, the Trump administration’s envoy to Lebanon, Tom Barrack, received a stunning proposal from the Lebanese government– a plan to disarm Hezbollah, the powerful Iran-backed Shia militia group that has dominated Lebanon’s politics and fought two major wars with Israel over the past 20 years. The process would occur over the next four months, in exchange for Israel halting strikes on Lebanon and withdrawing from the country’s South.
If Hezbollah were to drop its weapons it would redefine the Middle East virtually overnight. But can the Lebanese government really turn this proposal into reality?
On the one hand, Hezbollah has never been weaker. Over the past year and a half, Israel has decimated the group’s leadership and destroyed a great deal of its weapons. The collapse of the Assad regime, a key ally, upended a major smuggling route for weapons from Iran. And the regime in Tehran itself has been hobbled by the recent Israeli and American airstrikes.
Hezbollah has not publicly responded to the proposal, but is reportedly at least considering shrinking its arsenal. However, according to Eurasia Group’s Middle East expert Firas Maksad, “Hezbollah could just be buying time” by appearing open to diplomacy, hoping that the winds in the region shift back in its direction.
Why does the Lebanese government want Hezbollah to disarm? Hezbollah, which enjoys support from Lebanon’s sizable Shia population, is a major challenge to the Lebanese government. The group dominates South Lebanon, providing social services to the population, and it makes decisions about war and peace in the conflict against Israel without the national government’s consent.
“With the exception of Hezbollah’s support base, most Lebanese very much would like to see strengthened state authority and control over weapons,” says Maksad.
They aren’t the only ones. Wealthy international donors, including the US and the Gulf Arab monarchies, have made it clear that desperately needed financial and reconstruction aid won’t flow to the Lebanese government while a powerful armed group like Hezbollah operates effectively beyond state control.
What would it take for them to disarm? Hezbollah and its supporters in South Lebanon see its arsenal as a protection of Shia interests in Lebanon’s fragile sectarian balance, as well as a defense against Israel. Among many in the Shia community, Maksad explains, “any attempt to try and take away the weapons [is seen as] meant to undermine the community.”
He added that real disarmament would require, at a minimum, Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon under the terms of ceasefire agreements reached last November.
“There is this sense in Beirut, reflective of Hezbollah’s thinking, that Israel would need to fulfill its side of the obligations before more can be expected,” says Maksad.
But that sets up an impasse: Israel’s position is that it can’t leave Southern Lebanon while an Iran-backed militia is dug in there with weapons pointed at the Jewish state.
So where do things go from here? Maksad says there are two scenarios. One is a slow, drawn-out process where Hezbollah makes limited concessions under the guise of diplomatic dialogue — but without any real, comprehensive disarmament.
The other involves Israel forcing the issue. With its campaign in Gaza winding down, Israel may now look northward again, making a fresh effort to weaken Hezbollah so much that the group has no choice but to surrender.
At the moment, that looks like the way things are headed – Israel on Wednesday night launched a limited attack into South Lebanon, and its attacks on Hezbollah’s territory have ramped up in recent weeks. That almost certainly puts the prospect of a negotiated disarmament further out of reach in the near term.
“I don’t see diplomacy right now providing the required results of fully disarming Hezbollah,” Maksad warns.
Members of the Basij paramilitary force hold Iranian flag, Lebanese flag, and various militia flags, during a rally commemorating International Quds Day in downtown Tehran, April 14, 2023.
Q + A: Is this the end of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance?”
As the world reacted to Israel and the US bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities last week, one group was largely silent – Iran’s network of allied militias in the Middle East.
Since the 1980s, Tehran has cultivated what it calls an “Axis of Resistance” – a network of groups closely aligned with its agenda, encompassing Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen.
In a sharp contrast to the weeks after October 7th, when Hezbollah and the Houthis launched missiles at Israel in solidarity with Hamas and the Palestinian people, this time around, the militias have not joined the fray.
Hezbollah reportedly has no plans to strike Israel right now. Hamas and the Houthis have done nothing despite vowing to respond against “Zionist-American aggression.”
The relative silence this time around reflects in part how much weaker some of these groups are. Hezbollah and Hamas in particular have been decimated by Israel over the past year and a half. But it also reflects Iran’s overall diminished position in the region. Last December, Iran suffered another blow with the demise of the closely-allied Assad regime in Syria.
So where does Iran’s 'Axis of Resistance' stand today? Is this relative silence temporary or permanent? And how might all of this affect a region where Iran has until recently been a major strategic player?
To find out, we asked two experts, with somewhat clashing views. Lina Khatib, a visiting scholar at Harvard Kennedy School’s Middle East Initiative, and Renad Mansour, a senior research fellow and project director of the Iraq Initiative at Chatham House. Their responses have been lightly edited for clarity and concision.
GZERO: Are we witnessing the end of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance”?
Khatib: “The whole model of Iran's presence in the region has permanently changed…the Axis of Resistance, as Iran calls it, has crumbled in terms of it being a network. What we are left with are the individual groups, each struggling for survival in the country in which it operates…Iran is now fighting Israel and the United States on its own, its proxies are unable and unwilling to help it.”
Mansour: “For the time being, Iran is overstretched and looking to survive right now internally…but the connectivity will continue to be there to some extent…what remains of the axis has transitioned into more of a horizontal, non-hierarchical network – where Iran is still important – but the different groups have also begun to take on leadership roles.”
GZERO: With Iran’s decades-long dominance now diminished, how will the balance of power shift in the Middle East?
Khatib: “What we will see is an increased importance for the Gulf countries in the Arab world, in terms of being the heart of power in the Middle East, influencing where the rest of the region will head.”
Mansour: “It's hard to see whether there will be a hegemonic force…what we're looking at moving forward is a fragmented Middle East where you have multi-alignment, where you have different sides working with each other…based on different issues, where you don't really have clear spheres of influence.”
GZERO: What does this mean for regional stability moving forward?
Khatib: “Without Iran and its proxies, there will be less sectarian tension in the region and a greater possibility for cross-country cooperation in the Middle East, and therefore increased stability…[though this still] depends on whether Israel agrees to restart the peace process regarding Israel Palestine.”
Mansour: “There's so much unexpected, so much more violence that will happen before this comes to an end…[when] the US had overwhelming force and they went to war against Iraq or Afghanistan, would they have thought that this would actually facilitate the rise of their big enemy, Iran?”
Young Iranian female protesters shout anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli slogans while participating in a protest to condemn the U.S. attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities in downtown Tehran, Iran, on June 22, 2025, amid the Iran-Israel war.
What’s next for Iran?
The United States is back at war in the Middle East: Late Saturday evening, the US military unleashed 75 precision-guided weapons, including 14 “bunker-buster” bombs, against Iran’s Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites. Israel followed up by hitting Fordo’s access routes on Monday. US President Donald Trump is now openly contemplating regime change.
It’s not yet clear how much damage has been done to Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Trump hailed the operation and said that the US had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, but Vice President JD Vance said Sunday the White House is going “to ensure that we do something with that fuel,” tacitly acknowledging that the Islamic Republic may still retain supplies of enriched uranium. Tehran, for its part, said it had already moved fuel and key technology away from the key nuclear sites before they were bombed.
How Might Iran Retaliate? Tehran called for revenge, but it’s not yet clear what that looks like. The original Israel-Iran war continues, as the two sides traded barrages of ballistic missiles over the weekend. Whether the US becomes further intertwined is another matter. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned in a post on X that the US attacks “will have everlasting consequences” and that Tehran “reserves all options.” Those include:
- Closing the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could sow undersea mines, ban patrols, or harass tankers by quickboat to halt travel in the Strait, which would cripple roughly 20% of global oil transit and send prices soaring – prices are already edging up in anticipation of the strait’s closure. But Tehran would also pay the economic price of withholding its chief export, which US Secretary of State Marco Rubio qualified as “economic suicide.” Iran’s parliament seems unfazed: it voted on Sunday to back a plan to close the Strait of Hormuz, pending approval by the country’s Supreme National Security Council.
- Attacking US bases. US military sites in the region are on high alert after Iran’s Revolutionary Guard labeled US troops as not a “strength” but a “vulnerability.” Tehran also said on Monday that the US attack had expanded the range of legitimate targets. Analysts estimate, however, that half of Iran’s missile launchers have been destroyed and it has significantly depleted its stockpile of roughly 2,000-3,000 missiles.
- Attacking other US interests. Iran could strike US personnel and interests in the region, according to Middle East expert Jonathan Panikoff of the Atlantic Council. It could also bide time, rebuild capabilities, and plan terrorist attacks inside the US, including cyberattacks on major infrastructure. Such tactics may not satisfy hardliners, however, and the weakened regime may feel the need for a greater and faster show of strength.
- Leveraging allies and proxies. Russia has condemned the US strikes and could become more deeply involved, with Araghchi heading to Moscow for consultations on Monday. Iran could deploy proxies Hamas and the Yemen-based Houthis – who have already vowed revenge – to attack US or Israeli sites. Hardline factions inside Iran could also gain momentum.
What Do Iranians Want?
- Domestically, public reaction is mixed: a rally-around-the-flag effect combined with ongoing grievances with the regime over economic hardship, corruption, and lack of freedoms. Critically, there’s no mass opposition movement poised to topple the regime, and tight surveillance makes it more difficult to organize.
- Outside the country, the Iranian diaspora has long advocated for reform or regime change, but the government is now limiting their influence inside the country. It has shut down the internet and deployed AI answerbots, making communication extremely difficult, limiting the news Iranians can receive and their ability to engage.
US enters war with Iran: What comes next?
In his latest Quick Take, Ian Bremmer breaks down the US decision to formally join Israel in military strikes against Iran, marking a major escalation in the Middle East.
“The United States has formally entered the war in Iran,” Ian says, following a week of rising tensions and failed negotiations.
American forces launched targeted strikes on Iran’s underground Fordow nuclear facility and two other sites, a move Ian calls a “TikTok-style war,” quick, explosive, aimed at avoiding a long-term ground conflict, and something “Trump’s base can certainly get behind.”
Trump, who has positioned himself as a peace-focused president, “is now 0-3 on his big efforts at negotiations,” Ian notes, referencing failed talks with Russia, Israel, and now Iran.
Now the world waits to see how Iran responds. So far, the regime has shown restraint, but with its leadership weakened, deterrents degraded, and the threat of further strikes looming, retaliation is likely. Whether through proxy attacks or asymmetric escalation, Ian says Iran is now “more likely to act unhinged and less rational than what we’ve seen so far.”
Will Iran’s regime survive?
What’s next for Iran’s regime? Ian Bremmer says, “It’s much more likely that the supreme leader ends up out, but the military… continues to run the country.” Despite global speculation, real change will depend on the Iranian people, not foreign intervention, says Ian.
As attention shifts to the Middle East, Ukraine faces intensified Russian strikes with less international spotlight. Still, Ian notes NATO support remains “pretty solid,” and the upcoming NATO summit in The Hague will be a key signal of that.
And as China pushes for a multipolar currency system, Ian is skeptical: “It’s not premature to talk about multipolarity economically—it is in terms of a currency order.”
Iran looks to negotiate ceasefire
As the Israel-Iran war intensifies, Iran is seeking an urgent ceasefire, facing overwhelming Israeli military air superiority.
"They have virtually no capacity to strike back,” says Ian Bremmer in today’s Quick Take. Iran has reportedly expended 20% of its ballistic missiles, with minimal damage inflicted, while Israel has crippled large parts of Iran’s military infrastructure and nuclear program.
The US also looms large, as Ian says, “Trump is basically saying, ‘We’re not entering the war, but we will if you don’t engage in negotiations.’” A US-backed strike on Iran’s Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant remains a real threat if talks stall.
Despite widespread global condemnation of Israeli strikes, even Iran’s allies like Russia are not stepping in militarily. “Regime survival is the priority now,” Ian warns, as internal dissent grows within Iran’s leadership. But with the risk of irrational escalation rising, Ian adds: “That’s the fog of war stuff … far more likely as this war is going on.”
Israel strikes Iran: Could the US and Gulf States be pulled in?
Tensions in the Middle East escalate as Israel launches a surprise military strike against Iran, prompting international concern and speculation about broader conflict.
In his latest Quick Take, Ian Bremmer calls Israel’s strike on Iran “a huge success for the Israelis” and a significant blow to Iran’s regional influence. “A fair amount of Iran’s top military leadership has been decapitated by Israel,” he notes. While the US did not take part directly, Ian says President Donald Trump “gave at very least, a blinking yellow light, if not a direct green.” He warns of three high-risk responses Iran may pursue: a push for nuclear weapons, disruption of oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, or a harsh domestic crackdown. All are high-risk and carry the potential to draw the US and Gulf states into deeper conflict.
Iranian policemen monitor an area near a residential complex that is damaged in Israeli attacks in Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025.
The world on edge: Israel bombs Iran
Israel bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities Thursday night, causing “significant damage” at the country’s main enrichment plant, killing leading Iranian military figures and nuclear scientists, and sparking fears that the Middle East is on the verge of a wider war.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday morning the operation hasn’t ended, with strikes continuing into the afternoon.
The United States denied any involvement in the attacks, even though previous reports have suggested that Israeli Defense Forces couldn’t destroy Tehran’s nuclear facilities without Washington’s help. US President Donald Trump nonetheless used the opportunity to press Iran into making a deal – the US and Iran were supposed to hold talks in Oman on Sunday, but it’s now unclear whether Iranian officials will attend.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei pledged a “harsh” response, but their ability to respond has been hindered by Israeli strikes on Iran’s long-range missile facilities and air defenses. The IDF reported on Friday morning that Iran launched 100 drones into Israel, but there were no reports of significant damage.
The strikes mark a seminal moment for Netanyahu. The Israeli leader has long threatened bombing Iran, as he sees this as the only effective method of preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon – he doesn’t believe the US nuclear talks can achieve this. Netanyahu never followed through with this threat when former US President Barack Obama was negotiating a nuclear deal with Tehran a decade ago. This time is different: Netanyahu believes Iran is weak – many of their allies in the Middle East are either severely diminished or in exile – so he took his chance.
The strikes went much further than last year’s exchanges, in which Israel bombed the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria and Iran responded with a volley of 300 drones and missiles at Israel, which inflicted little visible damage.
Israel’s strikes yesterday didn’t come totally out of the blue. US and European officials warned earlier in the week that Israel was preparing a strike. Washington also evacuated nonessential staff from its embassy in Baghdad, as well as family members of military personnel at its Middle East bases, amid concerns about a widening conflict.
Where does it go from here? We asked Eurasia Group’s Middle East expert Firas Maksad to shed some light on a complex and dangerous situation. The conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Q: How will Iran respond, and what can it do now that some of its military capabilities have been damaged?
- Maksad: “It has to respond forcefully, if only to save face with a domestic audience, which is important for regime stability, but also to have leverage if there is any return to negotiations further down the road. However, its ability to reach Israel and effect significant damage is fairly limited. Its other options – including closure of the Straits of Hormuz, impacting oil prices or attacks against American basing facilities or even energy facilities in the GCC – those are all options that can backfire and provide the United States with enough pretext and reason to join the war.”
Q: Who, if anyone, can help Iran respond?
- Maksad: “Iran will naturally look towards its proxy network in the region in pursuit of its forward defense strategy, essentially having Hezbollah, but also the Houthis and the militias in Iraq, to come to its aid in a response. However, [the ability of these groups to respond] has been greatly diminished as a result of the past 18 months or so of war.”
Q: Will Israel attack more?
- Maksad: “The Israelis have said that this is only the beginning, the opening salvo of a long and sustained military campaign. I believe that to be the case. They can, in fact, inflict significant damage against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. However, that will require multiple waves of strikes for days and weeks to come, and so I suspect that this will be with us for quite some time.”
Q: Are there any hopes left for a US-Iran nuclear deal?
- Maksad: “Diplomacy is dead for the foreseeable future. It is very unlikely that the Iranian government will return to the negotiating table without at least having attempted a retaliatory strike first, for the purposes of saving face and gathering leverage. This will require some time, particularly as these Israeli strikes are ongoing, and so it is very unlikely, despite President Trump's call for Iran to come back to diplomacy, that the diplomatic off ramp will be Iran’s preferred path forward for weeks to come.”
We also asked Eurasia Group’s Director of Analysis Marc Gustafson whether the United States could be dragged into a regional war.
- Gustafson: “Trump will try to avoid getting involved. Not just because it is risky for the US military, but also because his campaign promise has been to get the US out of foreign wars. This message resonates with his base. That said, the US could get pulled into the conflict. [For example,] if Iran starts attacking US bases within range of Iran’s short-range missiles, Trump will be under considerable pressure to respond militarily.”