June 22, 2026 — Paris
The following column appeared in L'Express.
By Sarah Perez-Pariente
For decades, France has clung to a distinction that is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain in light of the facts: the idea that Hezbollah consists of two separate entities, one political and the other military.
Paris has long justified this approach in the name of realism and stability. Hezbollah sits in the Lebanese Parliament, participates in the country’s institutional life, and remains an unavoidable actor in Lebanon’s political landscape. On this basis, France has chosen to maintain a distinction between Hezbollah’s political and military wings, arguing that it preserves dialogue, French influence in Lebanon, and the country’s stability.
That doctrine suffered a particularly embarrassing setback last week. Interviewed on LCI, Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi stated that it was “absolutely unrealistic” to distinguish between Hezbollah’s political and military branches, describing the organization as “one single entity.”
For years, Paris has responded to critics by claiming that its position reflects a more nuanced understanding of Lebanese realities than that of its Western partners. But when Lebanon’s own foreign minister declares that this distinction does not correspond to reality, the question becomes difficult to avoid: what, exactly, is the French doctrine still based on?
The issue is not whether Hezbollah participates in Lebanese political life. That is an established fact. The real question is what this participation has produced. Far from evolving into a conventional political party, Hezbollah has used its institutional weight to consolidate its power while maintaining its military arsenal and strategic autonomy. Its parliamentary bloc, led by Mohammad Raad, is not separate from the armed organization; it is its political expression.
More fundamentally, Hezbollah’s participation in state institutions has not strengthened the Lebanese state. It has contributed to its weakening. Together with its allies, the movement has repeatedly obstructed state institutions, notably during the prolonged presidential vacuum that paralyzed the country following Michel Aoun’s departure from office in 2022. Its principal ally, Nabih Berri—Speaker of Parliament and leader of the Amal Movement—played a central role in preserving a political system that enabled Hezbollah to maintain its grip on Lebanese political life.
The Lebanese experience of the past 20 years should be sufficient to settle the debate. Hezbollah’s political participation has not normalized the organization; rather, it has granted it additional institutional legitimacy while allowing it to preserve an armed force operating beyond the control of the state.
Since its creation in 1982 with the support of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hezbollah has served as one of the Islamic Republic’s principal instruments for projecting power throughout the Middle East. More than 40 years later, its funding, weaponry, military training, and strategic orientation remain closely tied to Tehran.
The events that followed October 7, 2023, demonstrated this reality once again. By opening a front against Israel the day after the Hamas massacre, Hezbollah revealed itself for what it truly is: not merely a player in Lebanese domestic politics, but a central component of the regional architecture built by Iran. The ensuing conflict exposed the absurdity of a distinction supposedly separating Hezbollah’s political functions from its military activities.
France’s position is all the more difficult to understand given that France itself has paid a heavy price to Hezbollah. The 1983 Drakkar barracks bombing in Beirut claimed the lives of 58 French paratroopers. More than 40 years later, while French soldiers continue to serve in Lebanon, Paris persists in defending a distinction that Lebanese officials themselves now regard as unrealistic.
Moreover, this position increasingly isolates France. The United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands all consider Hezbollah to be a single organization. Not because they fail to appreciate the complexities of Lebanese politics, but because they believe this approach reflects the reality of the movement.
For years, France has justified its policy in the name of Lebanon’s stability. Yet the record is difficult to ignore: paralyzed institutions, prolonged presidential vacancies, economic collapse, weakened national sovereignty, and the steady expansion of Iranian influence.
Policies must ultimately be judged by their results. France’s distinction between Hezbollah’s political and military wings has neither strengthened the Lebanese state, nor reduced Hezbollah’s influence, nor encouraged the emergence of a more sovereign Lebanon. Above all, it has helped preserve a system of which Hezbollah remains the principal beneficiary.
By claiming to protect Lebanon’s stability, France has instead helped sustain a diplomatic fiction that has accompanied the gradual erosion of the Lebanese state.
When France’s partners, its allies, and now even Lebanese authorities themselves affirm that there is only one Hezbollah, continuing to argue otherwise can no longer be described as realism. It amounts to preserving a diplomatic fiction that few people still seem willing to believe.
Sarah Perez-Pariente is Acting Director of AJC Paris.
