Hezbollah’s Hybrid Model Under Strain: Relative Decline and the Evolving Dynamics of Irregular Warfare in Lebanon

Kristian P. Alexander 

Source Link

Since its founding in 1985, Hezbollah has stood out as a prototype of the modern hybrid actor. Hezbollah seamlessly blended irregular warfare tactics, conventional capabilities, political participation, and a deep-rooted social service network. In irregular warfare theory, such actors derive their strength from asymmetry, population control, and strategically using legitimacy to rival or undermine state authority. Hezbollah exemplified this model by operating as both a resistance movement and a parallel state, while also enjoying the patronage of powerful regional allies like Iran and Syria.

However, recent developments in late 2024 and early 2025 suggest an emerging, albeit relative, decline in its influence, viewed through the analytical lens of irregular warfare theory. Hezbollah’s operational model, as a hybrid actor, has traditionally enabled it to integrate conventional military capabilities with unconventional tactics, leveraging both state-like functions and clandestine operations. This unique characteristic, once a source of its strength, is now being tested by a confluence of internal and external pressures.

Hybrid Actors and the Theory of Irregular Warfare

As defined by the US Department of Defense, irregular warfare is “a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population.” This encompasses a range of activities including insurgency, terrorism, sabotage, subversion, and influence operations. Hybrid actors like Hezbollah complicate this further by incorporating both irregular and conventional elements: they engage in kinetic operations, field military units, control territory, and simultaneously participate in political systems and governance.

Hezbollah’s operational advantage has historically stemmed from its ability to function across these domains. It built local legitimacy through social services, ideological messaging, and armed resistance, all while maintaining deep vertical integration with regional networks. Irregular warfare theory also suggests that such dominance is fragile: the legitimacy, mobility, and sustainability of hybrid actors are vulnerable to internal fracturing, external pressure, and evolving political contexts.