On September 5, the Lebanese government is scheduled to discuss the army’s plan to monopolise weapons under its control, effectively stripping all factions — foremost Hezbollah — of their arms. The cabinet had already approved the principle last month.
Foreign Imposition
This step follows a fierce campaign against Hezbollah, which peaked in September last year with the assassination of its top leadership cadre. In November, Lebanon and Israel signed a U.S.- and internationally brokered ceasefire agreement. Despite Lebanon’s full compliance, Israel has continued to violate the deal by maintaining forces in five strategic hills in the south, bombing alleged weapons depots, and targeting field commanders.
In June, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy for Syria and Lebanon Thomas Barack presented Beirut with a paper reinforcing the ceasefire deal. It demanded, in no uncertain terms, the disarmament of Hezbollah.
Barack’s paper set a year-end deadline and tied Lebanon’s approval to promises of foreign aid, reconstruction, Israeli withdrawal, and the release of Lebanese prisoners. The envoy’s tone carried veiled threats, warning that “changes in the region are swift and could bypass Lebanon,” hinting at options that undermine the country’s sovereignty.
After much debate, the Lebanese cabinet endorsed the idea of disarmament “in line with the U.S. envoy’s objectives” and tasked the army with preparing an implementation plan before year’s end.
Hezbollah, which initially showed flexibility in discussing the paper, hardened its stance after the government’s decision. Ministers from the “Shi’a duo” walked out of the session in protest, calling the move a “grave mistake” and submission to “American dictates.” The party declared it would act “as if the decision does not exist.”
Later, Hezbollah stated unequivocally that surrendering its weapons would be akin to surrendering its very soul. It threatened to resist implementation, warning of civil war if the army were deployed against it. Secretary-General Naim Qassem even vowed a “Karbala-like battle” if necessary to thwart what he described as the “U.S.-Israeli plan to strip Hezbollah of its arms.”
To bolster its position, Hezbollah’s ally, Parliament Speaker and Amal leader Nabih Berri, avoided the phrase “disarmament” and instead spoke of the “fate of the resistance’s weapons,” insisting any discussion remain under constitutional and internal dialogue frameworks.
Meanwhile, Barack promised Lebanese President Joseph Aoun that Israel would present a “counterproposal” to Lebanon’s plan. Yet, in a media interview, he all but justified Israel’s violations, admitting Tel Aviv acts “wherever and however it wants.” His deputy, Morgan Ortagus, exerted further pressure, declaring that “this is the time for action, not words,” and placing the burden on Beirut to act first, after which Washington would “encourage” Israel to reciprocate.
Escalating Stakes
Hezbollah has thus moved from mere reservations to outright rejection, signalling readiness to confront any disarmament plan — especially amid Israel’s ongoing violations and refusal to withdraw from southern Lebanon.
Though Qassem did not directly threaten civil war, he warned of its possibility, accusing the government of executing “the Israeli–American order to end the resistance, even if it leads to internal strife.” Such fears are amplified by reports quoting Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal as saying he would prefer resignation over spilling Lebanese blood at the army’s hands.
For Hezbollah, the weapons issue is not simply about arms — it is about its survival as a resistance force, a political player, an Iranian ally, and a Shi’a movement facing what Qassem called “an existential threat.” The push for disarmament is seen as an attempt to exploit Hezbollah’s perceived weakness after its recent restraint: staying silent in the face of Israeli violations and assassinations, and avoiding direct involvement in the 12-day Iran–Israel war.
Demands that once focused solely on Hezbollah’s presence south of the Litani River have quickly expanded to its entire arsenal across Lebanon. This shift, coupled with Washington and Tel Aviv exploiting Beirut’s compliance while ignoring Israel’s breaches, has emboldened local rivals to press for Hezbollah’s dismantling under the cover of “state sovereignty.”
A Shared Fate
The stakes go beyond Lebanon. Hostility toward the Zionist project is not merely moral or ideological — though it is certainly that — but strategic. Israel today openly disregards borders, seeking to eliminate threats before they arise through brute force, with Netanyahu again boasting of the “Greater Israel” project that includes Lebanon.
Israel confronts the entire region with an agenda of subjugation, partition, and regime change. This reality demands collective resistance. Every source of strength for one party is strength for all, while every weakness exploited by Israel weakens the entire region.
Israel’s escalation against Hezbollah followed its ground advances in Gaza. Its strikes on Iran came only after weakening the party. Its intensified attacks on Yemen’s Houthis came after the war with Iran. Its unchecked aggression in Syria has been possible only because no one stopped it.
Thus, Hezbollah’s arms aimed at the occupier are not just a shield for Lebanon, but for the region — from Palestine to Syria to Iran. Claims that disarmament would serve Lebanon’s internal interests or reduce Iran’s influence are empty pretexts. The demand is American and Israeli in origin, and its timing is opportunistic.
In the end, Hezbollah will not surrender its weapons because it views them as the guarantee of its survival — politically, militarily, nationally, and communally. While it remains open to internal dialogue under the banner of a “defense strategy,” regional and domestic rivals pressing to exploit the “historic opportunity” risk cornering the party and leaving it no choice but escalation against the occupation rather than internal conflict.
The recent visit of Iranian official Ali Larijani underscored this dynamic, lending legitimacy to Hezbollah’s stance and signalling that the fate of its weapons will shape the destiny of the entire region for decades.
Ultimately, Israel’s unchecked aggression compels all regional actors to reassess and strategise. Hezbollah, too, must review some of its regional policies — particularly in Syria — but that does not justify its opponents aligning with U.S.-Israeli pressure. Such collusion is not only a strategic folly but also a moral betrayal and national crime.
One Ummah. One platform. One mission.
Your support keeps it alive.
Click here to Donate & Fund your Islamic Independent Platform
