PNN – If we interpret Hezbollah’s behavior within the framework of Allison’s model, we can say that the movement has made decisions based on rational calculation in recent months.
Hezbollah in Lebanon is in one of the most complex and sensitive periods of its political and military life. The current situation in Lebanon and the region is heavily influenced by geopolitical competitions and the redesign of the security order in West Asia by the United States and the Zionist regime. In such an environment, any immature reaction or decision could jeopardize not only the position of the resistance, but also Lebanon’s internal stability. In recent months, the United States, using economic, political, and media tools and through the Zionist regime as its military arm, has attempted to advance the “Resistance Disarmament Project” as part of the so-called “regional peace” plan. However, Hezbollah has shown that by adopting behavior based on wisdom and calculation, it is able to simultaneously safeguard the two fields of deterrence against an external enemy and avoid internal conflict.
Intelligent deterrence against Israeli attacks
Since the announcement of the ceasefire between Lebanon and the Zionist regime, Tel Aviv has violated this agreement more than four thousand times and has attacked Lebanese territory in the form of drone operations, air raids, and targeted assassinations. The main goal of these actions is to provoke Hezbollah into a major reaction that Israel can rely on to justify a full-scale war. However, contrary to Israel’s expectations, Hezbollah has not fallen into this scenario. This is what can be referred to as “tactical restraint,” a type of intelligent decision-making in which the resistance, while maintaining defensive readiness, does not allow the enemy to redefine the battlefield at will.
Read more:
The American-Zionist Agenda for the Economic Siege of Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Sheikh Naim Qassem, Secretary General of Hezbollah, has emphasized in this context: We are ready to defend, but we will not initiate war. If war is forced upon us, even if we have nothing but a plank of wood, we will not allow the enemy to pass. These words express the core spirit of Hezbollah’s behavior: maximum readiness for defense, coupled with a refusal to initiate conflict. Such an approach is a manifestation of rational decision-making at the level of a national actor.
Disarmament and Internal Balance Project
In addition to the external military threat, Hezbollah faces increasing political pressure to disarm, pressure from the United States, Israel, and some internal Lebanese currents. At the same time, the economic crisis, the collapse of the banking system, and party disputes has made the internal environment fragile. Meanwhile, any wrong action or reaction by Hezbollah could be a pretext for internal conflict. However, Hezbollah has tried to prevent this issue from turning into an internal crisis by relying on its historical legitimacy in the fight against the occupation and emphasizing that its weapons are “instruments of national defense.” This behavior shows that Hezbollah, while maintaining the principles of resistance, also has national responsibility on its agenda. In fact, the movement does not seek political dominance over Lebanon nor does it seek to eliminate competitors, but rather emphasizes maintaining the country’s stability and preventing social collapse.
Decision-making theory in foreign policy and the position of the rational actor model
To better understand Hezbollah’s behavior, it can be viewed from the perspective of foreign policy decision-making theories. These theories examine the behavior of national actors and their leaders in the decision-making process, rather than focusing solely on the structure of the international system. One of the most important of these approaches is the Rational Actor Model, which was first proposed by Graham Allison in his analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis. According to this model, the government or political organization is considered as a “single actor” that, by calculating goals, options, and consequences, makes a decision that will yield the greatest expected benefit.
Main components of the rational actor model
- Problem definition: The actor must correctly identify the nature of the crisis.
- Setting goals: Make it clear what benefits the decision-making seeks to achieve (survival, security, legitimacy, etc.)
- Presenting options: Identifying all possible ways to deal with the problem.
- Consequence assessment: Examining the costs and benefits of each option in the short and long term.
- Rational choice: Choosing the option that results in the greatest utility and the least cost.
In this model, it is assumed that decision-makers have sufficient information and act based on calculation and prediction of consequences, rather than emotional or ideological reactions.
Hezbollah and multi-level crisis management
Decision-making in such an environment is not simply reactive; it is a form of multi-level crisis management. Hezbollah must make decisions simultaneously at three levels:
Military level: Responding to aggression without escalating the conflict.
Domestic political level: Preventing the escalation of internal polarization.
Regional diplomatic level: Maintaining Lebanon’s position in regional equations without becoming a factor of instability.
At all three levels, Hezbollah’s behavior supports rational decision-making. This behavior can also be interpreted from a game theory perspective, as Hezbollah acts in a situation similar to that of “rational actors with limited information”: His actions are not based on emotions, but rather on predicting the other party’s behavior and assessing risks.