������Ƶ

Many people have long argued that the disarming of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah might backfire on the fragile country. But the course of Lebanon’s short yet troubled history shows that even those actors who influenced the country and imposed their ideological and military dominance over the state eventually became a part of that history themselves. The current efforts by Lebanon’s government to disarm Hezbollah should be supported by all Lebanese, as only the central state can guarantee safety, equity and stability for all.

In two crucial meetings last week, the Lebanese government moved toward ordering the army to draw up plans to disarm Hezbollah and any other armed factions in the country. No one is under any illusions that this step could not have been conceivable before 2025, but some of the recent seismic shifts in the Middle East have impacted Lebanon.

One was the end of the Assad regime in Syria, which fell last December.

The second was a result of the war in support of Gaza that Hezbollah fought and lost against Israel. This resulted in the decapitation of the militia’s leadership and the death of many top and middle-ranking commanders and foot soldiers. It led the militia to agree a ceasefire with Israel that was not negotiated through the caretaker government of the time and included an agreement to pull out of positions the armed militia held south of the Litani river, as well as to facilitate the implementation of all UN resolutions related to keeping the peace in the border areas with Israel. 

Beirut’s disarmament push is only natural for a new government that is aiming to rebuild Lebanon and end the suffering.

Mohamed Chebaro

Another factor was the election of a new president and government free of foreign influence. Lebanon had long been plagued by direct and indirect external interference in its internal and international affairs.

Beirut’s disarmament push is only natural for a new government that is aiming to rebuild Lebanon and end the suffering that resulted from policies that were conceived to undermine the state and keep the country as a vassal or puppet at the service of the so-called resistance axis.

The resistance of the Shiite community in Lebanon and their ministers in government is also natural, as Hezbollah and Amal (the two Shiite political parties that were dominant in the state until January this year) are set to lose the clout they built up over three decades. When they were the only ones allowed to bear and store arms in the name of resisting Israel, this had considerable returns for their constituents up and down the country. Any removal of their weapons would take with it the related privileges and gains on the social, economic and political fronts.

The rebuke that followed a statement made on X by Ali Akbar Velayati, the international affairs adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, indicated that Tehran’s clout over Lebanon may finally be dissipating. It was formerly inconceivable for a Lebanese message to speak of “flagrant and unacceptable interference” from Tehran, which was followed by the advice that Iran ought to focus on its own people’s needs. 

Most Lebanese seem hungry for their state to ensure its sovereignty and monopoly over the use of force.

Mohamed Chebaro

Lebanon’s independent stance is no doubt rooted in the transformation that has beset the Middle East since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, whose ramifications are still being felt across the region. For Lebanon, it resulted in a war that weakened Hezbollah due to two month of attacks that saw Israel establish several observation posts inside Lebanese territory at the end of 2024.

Most Lebanese seem hungry for their state to ensure its sovereignty and monopoly over the use of force. But that route will not be without challenges and dangers. It could cause rifts in society if Lebanon’s Shiite community feels alienated as a result of Hezbollah being disarmed. Reassuring that community is essential, but only within the framework that disarming all armed groups is the only way for Lebanon to redress its ailing state, society and political system.

Those against disarming Hezbollah should be reminded that Lebanese of many denominations have tried and failed to align themselves against the interests of their country at various times in its history. Some did so for ideological reasons in the 1950s, when Nasserism was sweeping the Middle East and the country narrowly evaded a mini civil war. Others believed in sacrificing their nation state to help the Palestinians liberate their country, permitting them to bear arms. There were also those who welcomed the Syrian regime’s grip on the country in the name of preventing communal strife after the 1975 to 1990 civil war. Others like Hezbollah bought into religious ideology and sanctioned resistance to Israel as promoted by Iran at the expense of the country’s stability.

Amid a complex geostrategic landscape and with Israel emboldened, the disarming of Hezbollah — even if it is emerging as a result of a US-designed plan — should be welcomed by all Lebanese. It offers a chance to disentangle Lebanon from the many misadventures of its various communities over the years. The call of the new president and prime minister should be heeded. Maybe then this small nation can benefit from a homegrown stability that shields it from adversity and affords its tired communities some respite and certainty after decades of discord and chaos.

• Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist with more than 25 years’ experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy.