In a notable development, an armed show of force by Hezbollah members carrying assault rifles in the “Zuqaq al-Blat” area near central Beirut on Saturday, 5 July, drew strong Lebanese reactions — especially from Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who condemned the display and called on the Ministries of Interior and Justice to follow up, arrest those responsible, and refer them for investigation.
Thomas Barrack on the Scene
The armed display in Beirut came about eight months after the ceasefire agreement reached in November 2024 between Lebanon/Hezbollah and the Israeli occupation under UN Resolution 1701, following Hezbollah’s battle in support of Gaza against Israel.
Less than 24 hours after the “Zuqaq al-Blat” incident, Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem declared, during an Ashura ceremony in Beirut’s southern suburbs on Sunday, 6 July, that Israeli threats would not force Hezbollah to surrender or lay down arms. He affirmed the movement’s commitment to resist the Israeli occupation, stating: “We confront the Israeli enemy to defend our country and we will continue, even if the whole world conspires to stop us.”
Qassem’s statement and the symbolism of the armed display in Beirut effectively raised Hezbollah’s ceiling after months of silence and non-response to continued Israeli attacks.
The group could have continued its policy of silence and “constructive ambiguity,” avoiding provocation at a time when it badly needs to rebuild after the blows it sustained in its confrontation with Israel.
This shift signals that Hezbollah perceives a serious new development that pushed it to raise the stakes now: it emerged, after secrecy, that a message was delivered to Hezbollah and the Lebanese state by the U.S. ambassador in Ankara, Mr. Thomas Barrack — who also serves as Washington’s envoy to Syria and Lebanon — demanding Hezbollah fully surrender its weapons by the end of this year in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from five occupied points in southern Lebanon and the release of funds earmarked for reconstruction in areas destroyed by Israel.
Sources indicate Barrack’s message carried a U.S. threat: Israel would have a free hand to act if Lebanon does not disarm Hezbollah, explaining the group’s firm stance, insisting on keeping its weapons to defend Lebanon and reclaim occupied territory.
During Barrack’s second visit to Beirut, on 7 July, he received Lebanon’s official response. He reportedly praised it and expressed satisfaction, urging the Lebanese government to do what is necessary regarding Hezbollah’s weapons, since the U.S. does not want to intervene directly.
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, after meeting the American envoy, told the media that Lebanon wants Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, halt hostile actions, and release Lebanese prisoners, so that the state can enforce the exclusive right to bear arms as stipulated in the Taif Agreement, which ended Lebanon’s civil war.
At face value, the Prime Minister’s statement frames handling Hezbollah’s weapons across all Lebanese territory as conditional on Israel fulfilling a three-part commitment: withdrawal, ending aggression, and freeing Lebanese prisoners.
From Administration to Resolution
In handling the Hezbollah weapons file, the Lebanese presidency has been engaged in ongoing discussions with Hezbollah since November. In turn, Hezbollah cooperated with the Lebanese government, allowing inspections of weapons sites south of the Litani River under the ceasefire and UN Resolution 1701 — while maintaining silence and avoiding responses to Israel’s repeated violations of Lebanese sovereignty, leaving the state to address these diplomatically and politically.
Meanwhile, Israel — with U.S. backing — continues to violate Lebanese airspace but no longer accepts the ceasefire terms of Resolution 1701, which focused on disarming Hezbollah south of the Litani. Israel now seeks to disarm Hezbollah entirely and end it as an armed resistance movement.
This shift, reflected in Barrack’s message to the Lebanese state, results from several factors and changes:
First: Striking Iran Hard
Israel sees delivering a significant blow to Iran as an opportunity to pressure Hezbollah to disarm. Weakening Iran weakens Hezbollah and vice versa, given their deeply rooted connection. Notably, Barrack’s message was delivered amid the war on Iran, signalling an attempt to capitalise on the regional shift involving Iran.
Second: Time Favouring Hezbollah
Israel likely views Hezbollah’s silence in the face of airstrikes and assassinations of its cadres as a sign of weakness after the Gaza support battle. But this silence does not necessarily reflect lasting weakness — it could be a tactical move to avoid a new war while Hezbollah regroups and rebuilds its organisational and security structures. Israel wants to seize this moment to finish off Hezbollah as a military force by pressuring the Lebanese state to disarm the group fully by year’s end, denying it time to recover.
Third: Redrawing the Middle East
The U.S. and Israel’s ambition to reshape the Middle East on Zionist terms is not easily achieved without eliminating obstacles like Iran’s power, Hezbollah, Hamas, and their allies in Yemen and Iraq. In this context, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington and meeting with President Trump centred on completing this goal — removing these challenges to cement Israeli dominance in the region and open the doors for normalisation with Arab states under U.S. support.
Hezbollah’s Options
Hezbollah’s options appear limited:
Option 1: Comply with the Lebanese government’s position and its response to the U.S. envoy’s message, surrendering its full arsenal in coordination with the state — on the condition that Israel withdraws from the occupied Lebanese territories or the five points it occupied after November 2024, and reconstruction begins in the areas Israel destroyed.
Option 2: Formally align with the Lebanese state’s approach while playing for time — banking on Israel’s nature, its habit of stalling on any agreement, its expansionist ambitions, and its ongoing violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty. This would allow Hezbollah to exploit contradictions and fast-changing internal and external dynamics.
Determinants of Hezbollah’s Position
Hezbollah is an ideological political movement rooted in the narrative of resisting Israeli occupation of Lebanese land and supporting the Palestinian people. Such a party does not easily abandon its narrative and weapons, as this would undermine its raison d’être — affecting its political weight within Lebanon and among the Shia community.
Political realism may impose its constraints, but Hezbollah’s position on disarmament likely depends on several factors:
- Iran’s Strategy: Whether Iran will maintain its alliances with non-state actors — foremost Hezbollah, closely tied to the IRGC and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — or pivot after losing Syria and a significant part of Hezbollah’s strength in Lebanon.
- Seriousness of U.S. and Israeli Threats: How credible the threats are and whether the Lebanese state is serious about enforcing disarmament, plus Hezbollah’s room for manoeuvre.
- Hezbollah’s Remaining Strength: A strong, well-organised Hezbollah differs greatly from a weakened one struggling against internal and external pressure.
- Israel’s Behaviour: Israel remains a decisive player. Will it trust the Lebanese state’s role in disarming Hezbollah, as welcomed by U.S. envoy Barrack in his recent Beirut visit? And is this goal really achievable by the end of the year, as Barrack’s message demanded?
The Lebanese state does not intend to ignite internal conflict with Hezbollah, given the severe consequences for Lebanon. Instead, it will stick to political dialogue, as is now happening between Hezbollah and the presidency under President Aoun.
It is unlikely Hezbollah will willingly give up its weapons. The state is unlikely to resolve this issue through anything other than dialogue and internal consensus. This means the matter will remain hostage to time and shifting regional developments — especially the future of U.S.-Iranian relations, potential negotiations, and the threat of Israeli escalation against Tehran. Reuters recently quoted Netanyahu during his Washington visit as saying he “sees an opportunity to deal an even stronger blow to Iran.”
