Hezbollah’s Calculated Silence

By Mohamad Hammoud

Understanding Resistance, Restraint, and the Logic of Asymmetric War

“The supreme commander,” Sun Tzu wrote, “is the one who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” This insight lies at the heart of debates over Hezbollah’s behavior and explains why calls for instant, army-style retaliation miss the point.

Each time “Israel” strikes Lebanon, critics ask why Hezbollah, claiming to protect the country, does not respond with the force and speed of a conventional army. The question misses the fundamental nature of resistance. Movements like Hezbollah are not substitutes for national armies; they emerge when the state cannot protect its people. In that context, Hezbollah was born to do what the national army could not: protect communities and resist occupation.

Unlike classical armies, resistance movements speak a different language: invisibility, dispersion, civilian embedding, and timing. Fighters move among the people they defend, threading through neighborhoods, avoiding the trade of manpower for spectacle.

Military strategists—from Sun Tzu to modern scholars—agree on this distinction. Sun Tzu emphasized in The Art of War that “he will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” Modern armies study this principle, but it is even more essential for resistance.

Hezbollah’s calculus is defensive and selective: strike to reinforce deterrence, hold back when escalation favors “Israel,” and preserve the narrow margin that protects both the movement and the communities it defends.

To critics, this discipline may look like restraint. In reality, it is a strategy. Hezbollah seeks not a single dramatic victory but a sustainable posture of deterrence. In asymmetric conflict, surviving to fight another day is often the closest thing to success.

Why People Turn to Resistance

No community chooses a resistance movement over its national army; people turn to resistance only when no other protector exists. Lebanon reflects a global pattern: when the state fails, communities seek whoever will defend them. Southern villages faced routine shelling, raids, and “Israeli” occupation long before Hezbollah existed. Families waited for the Lebanese state, only to find it paralyzed or too weak to confront a superior invader, and the Resistance emerged.

This dynamic is not unique to Lebanon. Algerians rallied around the FLN, Irish communities backed Michael Collins’ network and Vietnamese villagers supported the Viet Minh when state armies were absent or compromised. Hezbollah followed the same logic: people joined not for ideology alone but for protection. Resistance becomes the last line of defense when the first line has collapsed.

The Asymmetric Advantage

Resistance movements survive not by matching power but by exploiting imbalance, a pattern noted in counter-insurgency studies and US military assessments. Every foreign strike strengthens their legitimacy: the community is under attack, and resistance becomes its defense. Unlike classical armies, which rely on state authority, resistance draws strength from protecting civilians and resisting occupation.

Invisibility is key. Conventional armies consume vast resources, while resistance networks move through family ties, safe houses, and improvised supply chains. As a US Army manual notes, “the enemy is among the people, and the people are the sea in which he swims.” Time becomes a weapon: quick victories matter to conventional forces, but resistance aims to outlast. The Afghan Mujahideen, for example, stretched Moscow’s patience rather than winning single battles.

When the Weak Outlast the Strong

History shows resistance can outlast superior armies: the Irish struggle for independence, the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu, and Solidarity in Poland. Conventional forces may win battles; resistance wins the long game. Critics who demand symmetrical retaliation misunderstand Hezbollah’s purpose. It is not the Lebanese Army and is not built for open-field tank battles or sustained air campaigns. Analysts note that Hezbollah’s limited, calibrated responses prevent “Israel” from exploiting its superior firepower.

This restraint is a strategy, not fear. Sun Tzu warned that choosing the wrong battlefield means defeat before the first arrow flies. Immediate retaliation could trigger escalation that only one side can endure. In asymmetric war, silence becomes a weapon — an operational pause that preserves the movement, maintains deterrence, and denies “Israel” control of the conflict’s tempo.

Conclusion: Survival as Victory

A classical army fights battles; a resistance movement survives them. That is the logic of asymmetric conflict. Each day a resistance group endures against a stronger adversary, it achieves its mission. In that quiet, often misunderstood endurance lies the kind of victory history remembers long after the smoke clears.