In Three Stages: How Hezbollah Rebuilt Itself

Against the backdrop of a constantly evolving security situation, the global media lens reveals unique perspectives on what is happening in Israel. From analyses by international experts, outside interpretations and small stories from Israel that slip under the radar, every day we bring you a short daily roundup of what is being written in the world press about Israel, in an effort to decipher how things from here look abroad. The articles we present in this section are taken from major newspapers around the world and do not necessarily reflect Globes' worldview. ● Warnings abroad: the rules of war have changed, and Israel must also adapt ● WSJ | Between Israel and Hezbollah: Lebanon is on the brink of civil war 1 CNN: Trump uses military force and gets the opposite result against Iran On paper, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is not trying to hide the American strategy toward Iran. “If we need to negotiate under fire, we’ll negotiate under fire,” he said this week. President Donald Trump added sharply that Iran “thinks we’re suckers” and threatened that it would “pay a price.” But two leading American media outlets, The Wall Street Journal and CNN, present a much more complex picture: the United States and Iran have entered a new and dangerous phase, in which both sides are trying to use measured military pressure without being dragged back into all-out war, while understanding that there is a real risk of renewed escalation. The Wall Street Journal explains that “although neither side wants to continue, both are willing to continue,” with each side’s goal clear: “to create a narrative that will allow them to calm the situation without appearing to have surrendered... the lack of progress in the negotiations means that the United States and Iran remain in a low-intensity conflict, in which neither side wants to be seen as backing down by accepting a deal that is not good for it.” CNN is convinced that Trump is getting the opposite result. “The Trump administration is convinced that military strikes will eventually force Tehran to surrender,” and that it will be able to establish the narrative it wants. “But that is a mistaken view,” the report says. “Evidence from the past three months suggests that Washington is only making the Iranians more stubborn through the use of military force, and only strengthening Tehran’s belief that the United States cannot be trusted.” The president “bypassed ongoing diplomatic efforts” at the most sensitive point in the negotiations, it was noted, and according to experts interviewed by the site, an agreement based on the use of force is doomed to fail. The shared conclusion of the two papers is clear: both sides are celebrating tactical victories that do not change the equation, and asking, “Why continue with an approach that keeps failing?” The Wall Street Journal, by Jared Malsin and David Lieber. To read the full article. CNN, by Stephen Collinson. To read the full article. 2 How opening the Strait of Hormuz could bring down the world's most powerful oil organization The war in Iran cut about 13 million barrels a day from global exports, one of the most severe oil crises in recent history. So it would seem obvious that reopening Hormuz would fix the situation. But at MODREN DIPLOMACY, an analysis and opinion site focused on international relations, they believe that “restoring activity in Hormuz could at the same time accelerate the erosion of OPEC’s market power.” Gulf governments, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Iran, lost tens of billions of dollars in revenue during the blockage, the analysis notes, and they are convinced that “once the strait opens, each country will rush to maximize sales as quickly as possible.” The expected result, according to the site, is a rapid shift to oversupply, with strong downward pressure on prices. “Opening Hormuz may be remembered not only as the end of a major energy crisis, but as a turning point in the gradual decline of OPEC’s ability to shape the global oil market.” In conclusion, the article points out that the organization has weakened significantly in recent times. Its share of global production has fallen, internal unity has frayed, and the United Arab Emirates’ departure from the organization is “one of the most significant institutional blows in recent years.” Is it heading for another blow? MODREN DIPLOMACY, by Sana Khan. To read the full article. 3 Has Hezbollah rebuilt itself? The war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2024 left the terror organization battered, with its chain of command severed and thousands of fighters killed. But nearly 70 days into the Ramadan War, the round of fighting that broke out in March 2026, a surprising conclusion emerged: “Today’s Hezbollah is significantly different from the force that fought two years ago.” This is how Iranian researcher Hadi Masumi Zare presents it, in MIDDLE EAST EYE (MDE), a site that covers Israel in a hostile manner. The main change, Zare argues, is in the organization’s command structure. In 2024, Hezbollah suffered from a disconnect between headquarters and the field, which caused delays and a loss of capabilities. In the current war, by contrast, it continues to fight without difficulty. The reason, he says, is the centralization of authority under a unified command, alongside empowering mid-level commanders to make independent decisions on the ground, a model Zare calls “mission before structure.” Second, the terror organization has shifted its paradigm from an emphasis on “quantity” to an emphasis on “quality.” Hezbollah learned lessons from the previous campaign and began using more drones. “The deepest change is conceptual,” Zare writes. “Previously, the key principle was to defend territory at any cost. Today, the goal is continuous harm to the enemy.” In other words, even the fall of the area south of the Litani would not necessarily be a strategic defeat, as long as Israel cannot establish its presence there and is worn down. But Zare warns that the biggest threat to Hezbollah is not Israel, but Lebanon itself. The refugee crisis, the economic collapse and attempts by internal actors, including the Lebanese government, to inflame sectarian tensions could undermine the organization’s ability to wage a prolonged war of attrition. “The durability of this situation will ultimately depend on Lebanon’s internal dynamics, an environment that may prove more decisive than the front itself,” the Iranian researcher concludes. MIDDLE EAST EYE, by Hadi Masumi Zare. To read the full article.