Steven Sahiounie, journalist and political commentator
Lebanon finds itself at a pivotal moment as internal debates intensify over the future of Hezbollah’s weapons, amid escalating threats from Israel and American diplomatic pressure. Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, recently expressed openness to discussing disarming Hezbollah within the framework of the Lebanese constitution, emphasizing the need for calm, consensual dialogue. His remarks came in response to the controversial visit of Israeli Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi to southern Lebanon, which Berri condemned as a “provocation.”
Israel is currently occupying parts of Southern Lebanon since invading on October 1, 2024, marking the sixth Israeli invasion of Lebanon since 1978. Despite a U.S. brokered ceasefire agreement, Israel has refused to comply with the terms of the agreement, which called for the Israelis to withdraw.
After the Lebanese government complained to Tom Barrack, the Trump appointed special envoy to Lebanon, he said the U.S. was in no position to demand Israeli compliance. This intransience feeds into the Arab narrative that Tel Aviv writes the U.S. foreign policy in Lebanon.
Berri underscored that Hezbollah’s weapons represent “honor and pride,” warning against the spread of hate speech and divisive rhetoric. He criticized attempts to shift responsibility onto the Lebanese Army, asserting that “malicious minds are more dangerous to Lebanon than the resistance weapons that liberated our land.”
He also accused Israel of violating the ceasefire agreement, while Lebanon has remained committed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Berri claimed, is pursuing a “Greater Israel” vision that includes all of Lebanon.
In response to Palestinian attacks from Lebanon, Israel invaded the country in 1978 and again in 1982. Hezbollah was formed as a Lebanese resistance organization in 1982.
Israel brutally occupied Southern Lebanon from 1982 to 2000. It was only the acts of resistance from Hezbollah and others which were responsible for the Israeli withdrawal. Hezbollah taught the world that armed resistance to occupation can work, and is guaranteed by the Geneva Convention.
Generally, the population of Southern Lebanon is Shiite and Christian. Hezbollah is a Shiite organization, supported by Iran. Both the U.S. and Israel view Iran as the enemy.
According to statistics at the U.S. Department of State, Lebanon’s population is divided into three almost equal segments between Shiites, Sunnis and Christians. If Hezbollah was supported strictly by Shiites, we could see statistically they would be in a weak position. But, that is not the case. There are Sunni and Christian supporters of Hezbollah, as they have viewed the resistance as the strongest armed defense of the nation.
The Lebanese army has been historically a very weak military organization. Recently, the army is being supported by the U.S. and other actors. According to GlobalFirepower.com, Lebanon’s
Armed Forces are ranked 118th out of the 145 countries considered for the annual review in 2024 in terms of strength.
Lebanon suffered through a bloody civil war along sectarian lines from 1975-1990. Many have warned the abrupt disarming of Hezbollah by force from the Lebanese army could reignite the civil war.
Israel attacked Lebanon in the summer of 2006 and carried out nationwide airstrikes and a limited ground invasion in the south. Israel bombed the Khaim prison in which thousands of Lebanese men, women and children were detained, tortured and killed during the previous occupation. They destroyed the prison in order to erase their crimes against humanity.
In June, U.S. envoy Tom Barrack presented a proposal to the Lebanese government calling for Hezbollah’s disarmament in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from five occupied border points and the release of reconstruction funds. On August 5, the Lebanese Cabinet approved a plan to centralize all weapons under state control, tasking the army with implementation by the end of 2025. Hezbollah rejected the move, warning it could lead to civil war.
Two days later, the government endorsed the U.S. proposal’s objectives, including a timeline for disarmament and deployment of the Lebanese Army in the south. Israel responded with airstrikes targeting Hezbollah infrastructure near Beaufort Castle in Nabatieh, causing significant damage to residential areas.
The Institute for National Security Studies in Israel proposed a three-phase plan:
– Phase 1: Disarm Hezbollah in southern Lebanon per UN Resolution 1701, in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from five points.
– Phase 2: Remove Hezbollah from the Bekaa Valley and border crossings with Syria, while resolving land disputes.
– Phase 3: Complete disarmament across Lebanon, contingent on full Israeli cessation of airstrikes and respect for Lebanese sovereignty.
Despite these proposals, Israeli officials remain skeptical. Netanyahu has shown reluctance to withdraw from southern Lebanon or engage in reciprocal steps, raising concerns about the viability of the plan.
Hezbollah reiterated its refusal to surrender its weapons, with Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem declaring, “We will not abandon the arms that brought us dignity.” The party warned that any attempt to forcibly disarm it could provoke widespread unrest.
Lebanese Army Commander General Rudolf Heykal reportedly expressed his unwillingness to lead a campaign that could result in Lebanese bloodshed, even considering resignation. Military leadership has voiced concerns over the feasibility of executing a comprehensive disarmament plan, especially amid suggestions of Israeli intelligence support.
Heykal said he would not order the army to fire on Lebanese, just to satisfy the enemy, referring to Israel.
American and Saudi officials are pressing Lebanon to accelerate implementation. Some U.S. officials proposed a gradual approach, starting with isolating Shiite areas and expanding army control elsewhere. However, regional instability—from Gaza to Syria—may complicate these efforts.
In a parallel development, the Lebanese Army began collecting weapons from Palestinian factions in southern camps, marking the largest disarmament effort since the civil war. This move, coordinated with the Palestinian Authority, is seen as a symbolic step toward asserting state sovereignty.
Yet, analysts question whether the same approach can be applied to Hezbollah, whose arsenal and influence far exceed that of Palestinian groups.
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham hailed Lebanon’s decision to disarm Hezbollah as a “major step forward” and a blow to Iran’s regional influence. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton echoed this sentiment, arguing that “liberating Lebanon from Hezbollah” is essential for Middle East peace.
Bolton emphasized that Hezbollah’s power stems from Iranian support, and that recent Israeli strikes have significantly weakened its leadership and arsenal. Nevertheless, he warned that the group still retains substantial military capabilities.
Lebanon stands at a critical juncture. The government’s decision to pursue Hezbollah’s disarmament has triggered a complex web of domestic resistance, regional dynamics, and international diplomacy. Whether this initiative leads to stability or further conflict remains to be seen, with upcoming political milestones likely to shape the country’s trajectory.
Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist.
