Overview
In recent months, Lebanon has edged closer to a confrontation over the future of Hezbollah's weapons. Tensions have risen since the 2024 Israel–Hezbollah war, which left parts of southern Lebanon devastated and underscored the fragility of the UN-brokered ceasefire under Security Council Resolution 1701. That resolution, adopted in 2006, called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) alongside UNIFIL, and the disarmament of all armed groups outside state control. Nearly two decades later, its provisions remain only partially implemented, with Hezbollah continuing to operate as the country's most powerful non-state actor.
Against this backdrop, the Lebanese government recently announced a plan to consolidate all arms under state authority by the end of 2025, beginning with the collection of weapons from Palestinian factions. Yet Hezbollah has rejected the initiative outright. The Shi'a armed group has warned that any attempt at forced disarmament could trigger a civil war, recalling the country's traumatic experience between 1975 and 1990. This latest impasse highlights a fundamental dilemma: can Lebanon disarm Hezbollah without threatening the delicate sectarian balance that has long defined its politics? And if so, will the LAF be able to guarantee the country's security against external threats, particularly from Israel?
Hezbollah's Weapons and Strategic Position
Hezbollah's leadership has made clear that it views disarmament as an existential threat. Deputy Secretary General Naim Kassem declared earlier this summer that the group would treat the government's plan "as if it doesn't exist," and warned that stripping Hezbollah of its arsenal would serve U.S. and Israeli interests while leaving Lebanon dangerously exposed. He cautioned that "there will be no life in Lebanon" if the government moved forward with its plan to disarm the group.
Historical Context
Hezbollah's arsenal originated in the 1980s, armed and trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps during the Lebanese civil war. Despite significant losses in the 2024 war with Israel, the organization still retains substantial firepower and maintains support within Lebanon's Shi'a community.
Hezbollah argues that maintaining its weapon supply is essential to deterring Israeli aggression. Israel's ongoing presence in parts of southern Lebanon, as well as repeated border clashes, reinforce this claim. The Lebanese Armed Forces, despite their professionalism, remain underfunded and lack the heavy weaponry needed to counter the Israeli Defense Forces. This leaves space for Hezbollah to argue that they are the only force capable of defending Lebanon.
Proposals Under Consideration
- Gradual Integration: Transfer Hezbollah's arsenal to the LAF while preserving their role in border defense
- Sequenced Disarmament: Link to political reforms, LAF strengthening, and Israeli withdrawal guarantees
- Regional Framework: U.S.-backed initiative with Israeli concessions and Gulf economic incentives
Hezbollah has consistently rejected frameworks perceived as externally imposed or that weaken its deterrent capabilities without concrete security guarantees.
Fears, Collective Memory, and the Future of Disarmament
The debate over Hezbollah's weapons is shaped as much by Lebanon's past as by its present security concerns. Memories of the 1975–1990 civil war remain vivid, and for many Lebanese communities, the trauma of that conflict continues to shape their views on disarmament. The war's sectarian militias, cycles of violence, and foreign interventions left deep scars and a lasting fear that weakening one group could expose others to retaliation or domination.
Syria Spillover
The descent of Suwayda into sectarian conflict in July 2025 resonated strongly in Lebanon. For the Druze and Maronite Christians, it reinforced fears that state weakness can quickly give way to bloodshed.
Sectarian Balance
Many Lebanese approach disarmament with caution—balancing sovereignty concerns against the need for a deterrent against Israel and a safeguard in times of crisis.
State Authority
The tension reflects the broader dilemma: how to balance sovereignty and security without destabilizing the equilibrium that has prevented a return to civil war.
America, the Region, and the Future of Lebanon
External actors continue to play a decisive role in shaping Lebanon's debate over disarmament and state sovereignty. The United States, through the involvement of envoy Thomas Barak, has positioned itself as a key broker. Barak's initiative links Hezbollah's disarmament to an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, framing it as part of a broader regional security arrangement.
Barak emphasized that the initiative is not premised on coercion but persuasion, with an economic package designed in coordination with Gulf partners such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. This package seeks to provide alternative livelihoods for Hezbollah fighters and their families, who have long relied on Iranian support. The approach reflects a recognition that Hezbollah is not only a military actor but also a political and social network embedded in Lebanon's Shi'a community.
Gulf Engagement
- Qatar has signalled interest in underwriting economic reconstruction in southern Lebanon
- Saudi Arabia seeks to reassert itself by backing state institutions over non-state actors
- Iran's reduced capacity has created space for Gulf states to increase influence
Regional Dynamics
- Israel's calculations: frustration with slow progress could push toward unilateral escalation
- Collapse of Assad regime has weakened Iranian supply lines to Hezbollah
- Lebanon's internal debate inseparable from broader regional rivalries
Possible Scenarios (6-12 Months)
Managed Stalemate
Border tensions simmer but avoid full war. Government pursues symbolic steps against smaller factions while Hezbollah resists. State legitimacy erodes, but sectarian balance holds.
Israeli Pre-emptive Action
If Hezbollah openly rejects disarmament and re-arms visibly, Israel could act unilaterally. A targeted campaign against weapons depots would likely trigger major retaliation, plunging Lebanon back into destructive war.
Limited De-escalation Deal
Quiet understandings reduce frontline clashes; Hezbollah and Israel mutually pull back. Improves civilian safety but stops short of real disarmament.
Incremental Arms Management
Instead of disarmament, weapons are partially registered, monitored, or integrated into LAF structures. Improves predictability but risks backlash if seen as legitimizing Hezbollah's arsenal.
Incentivized Draw-Down
With Gulf and international backing, pilot schemes offer jobs and stipends in exchange for partial arms control. Depends on funding and security guarantees, would be implemented in phases.
Conclusion
Lebanon's disarmament debate reflects unresolved questions of sovereignty, sectarian balance, and regional insecurity. The challenge is not only whether Hezbollah can be disarmed, but whether Lebanon's fragile state institutions can withstand the pressures that such a process would unleash. Any attempt at forced disarmament risks reviving the country's darkest chapters, while indefinite stalemate continues to undermine state legitimacy and leave the south vulnerable to conflict.
Policy Priorities
For policymakers, the priority over the next 6–12 months should be stability rather than speed. Disarmament, if it is to be viable, must be sequenced with efforts to strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces, restore confidence in state institutions, and address the economic collapse that continues to erode public trust.
Ultimately, Lebanon's path forward will be determined as much by its internal debate as by external bargains. For any framework to endure, it must be seen by Lebanese communities not as an imposed solution but as a strategy that safeguards their security, dignity, and sovereignty.
