The funerals of Hezbollah’s former secretary-generals, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and his successor Sayyed Hashem Safieddine—assassinated before he could assume his duties—were held last Sunday before a crowd whose size was deliberately exaggerated by organizers, who claimed it amounted to a third of Lebanon’s population, in an effort to give the event greater political weight. According to security forces' estimates, the actual turnout was closer to half a million people. Regardless of the precise number, this gathering demonstrated that Hezbollah still wields significant influence over its Lebanese base and in the broader region, despite the severe blows it has suffered and the ongoing crises it faces.

Show of Strength

Hezbollah’s decision to hold grandiose funerals for Nasrallah and Safieddine was a carefully calculated move aimed at projecting an image of unity and strength. The ceremony was postponed several times due to security concerns and to ensure maximum participation from both Lebanon and neighboring countries. The event ultimately reaffirmed the party’s ability to mobilize its supporters in large numbers.

More than a simple funeral tribute, this event carried a clear political message: it was designed to reaffirm Hezbollah’s determination to pursue its mission and maintain its influence in Lebanon. By organizing a ceremony of such magnitude, the party sought to reassure its base and allies of its continued resilience in the face of mounting challenges.

Leadership Transition Under Pressure

Naïm Qassem, Hezbollah’s new secretary-general, takes over the party’s leadership at an exceptionally difficult time. During the funeral, he called on Hezbollah’s cadres and supporters to demonstrate loyalty and commitment, emphasizing that the event was not merely a moment of mourning but a reaffirmation of the party’s steadfastness.

Qassem declared that Hezbollah remains committed to "resistance" against Israel while simultaneously attempting to rebuild its political alliances in an increasingly complex Lebanese landscape. Facing growing pressure from both domestic and international actors, the party is being urged to disarm and transition into a purely political entity, particularly following the ceasefire agreement with Israel brokered by the United States.

Strategic Shift Signs?

However, Qassem’s speech hinted at notable shifts in Hezbollah’s stance. Did he not implicitly acknowledge a strategic turning point when he stated, "We have entered a new phase with different tools and methods"? Was he not signaling a change in approach when he admitted, "Hezbollah accepted a ceasefire on strategic grounds (...) We upheld our commitments, but Israel did not. It is now up to the Lebanese state to take responsibility"? His message became even clearer when he declared that "Hezbollah is committed to participating in state-building" and reaffirmed "its dedication to national unity, civil peace, and inclusive reconstruction efforts."

It would be unrealistic to expect Hezbollah to adopt a radically different discourse in such circumstances. However, a closer political reading reveals the early signs of a transformation that may take time to materialize.

What Lies Ahead?

The Lebanese state, for its part, is at the forefront of efforts to complete the mission of liberating its territory from Israeli occupation without repeating the heavy losses inflicted by armed resistance. It is also striving to secure reconstruction funds, despite the destruction having largely resulted from conflicts beyond its control.

Iran’s influence over Hezbollah remains decisive, even as Tehran sought to capitalize on the funerals for its own media objectives. However, the message conveyed by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to the Iranian delegation at the ceremony was unequivocal: he reiterated Lebanon’s rejection of foreign interference in its internal affairs and stated that "Lebanon is weary of wars fought by others on its soil."

Under these circumstances, how can Hezbollah sustain its resistance capabilities if Iranian-Lebanese relations evolve into a strictly state-to-state dynamic, while land borders remain blocked and air and sea routes are tightly monitored?

The era in which Hezbollah could exploit state resources and unilaterally impose strategic choices appears to be coming to an end. The only viable path forward for Lebanon—and first and foremost for Hezbollah—is to fully embrace the state-building project and abandon any regional agenda that would require it to undertake the quasi-impossible task of restorating of its former military capabilities.

Those who attended Nasrallah and Safieddine’s funerals experienced a moment of deep mourning and emotion. But today, they aspire to resume their daily lives, return home, secure their children’s education, and revive their businesses after years of devastation.

As painful as the loss of these figures may be, life must go on. And if weapons have failed to achieve the desired goals, long-term diplomacy and political engagement may prove to be more effective.