https://arab.news/we6nt
Lebanon stands at a decisive crossroads. The choice is stark and unavoidable: reclaim the monopoly on legitimate force or watch the slow, irreversible erosion of the state. At the heart of this crisis lies Hezbollah’s arsenal — a parallel military power that operates beyond government authority, answers to an external command structure and wields enough influence to veto national decisions at will.
For decades, Hezbollah’s weapons have been justified under the banner of “resistance,” originally framed as a necessary shield against Israeli aggression. That narrative, however, has long since expired. What began as a defensive posture has morphed into a political and military apparatus that holds the Lebanese state hostage, subverts democratic institutions and serves as an arm of a foreign power’s regional strategy. Today, Hezbollah’s weapons no longer protect Lebanon — they protect Hezbollah’s ability to dictate Lebanon’s future.
The foundation of any sovereign state is its monopoly over the use of force. In Lebanon, this principle is broken. Hezbollah maintains a standing arsenal, a command structure independent of the national army and the capacity to make war or peace without consulting the state. This dual security system corrodes the very idea of sovereignty. One side is accountable to the Lebanese people through democratic governance. The other side is accountable to foreigners, drawing its legitimacy from an ideology and an external agenda that do not always align with Lebanon’s national interests.
As long as Hezbollah retains its weapons, Lebanon’s national sovereignty is conditional at best — a slogan for political speeches rather than a lived reality. Foreign policy decisions will remain hostage to the calculations of an armed faction whose priorities extend far beyond Lebanon’s borders.
Hezbollah’s weapons no longer protect Lebanon — they protect Hezbollah’s ability to dictate Lebanon’s future
Hani Hazaimeh
The consequences of this military imbalance are not theoretical. Every regional escalation risks pulling Lebanon into confrontation, whether through military exchanges with Israel or covert operations on Lebanese soil. This constant risk makes the country a bargaining chip in geopolitical rivalries it cannot control and should not have to endure.
The region itself is moving toward a different paradigm. Arab capitals are engaging in diplomacy and prioritizing economic recovery over ideological confrontation. Yet Lebanon remains locked in a militant posture that isolates it from these opportunities.
Instead of benefiting from economic partnerships, foreign investment and integration into a stabilizing regional order, Lebanon remains vulnerable — economically isolated, diplomatically constrained and politically paralyzed. Hezbollah’s weapons are not only an internal security problem; they are a structural barrier to Lebanon’s reintegration into a changing Middle East.
Supporters of Hezbollah’s armed status often argue that these weapons serve as a deterrent against Israeli aggression. In practice, they have not prevented conflict; they have invited it. Each round of escalation devastates Lebanese infrastructure, displaces civilians and deepens the economic crisis. The destruction of southern Lebanon in past confrontations and the lingering risk of renewed war are proof that this deterrent is, at best, a temporary shield with a devastating price tag.
Moreover, the military balance has shifted in ways that diminish Hezbollah’s strategic value. Israel’s technological and intelligence capabilities have evolved, making Hezbollah’s arsenal less of a deterrent and more of a liability. What remains is a political reality: the weapons are less about protecting Lebanon from external threats and more about preserving Hezbollah’s leverage in the internal balance of power.
Beyond the battlefield, the presence of an armed faction outside state control distorts Lebanon’s democratic process. No government can operate freely when one political actor can back its demands with the implicit — or explicit — threat of force. Cabinet decisions, parliamentary debates and policy initiatives all exist under the shadow of Hezbollah’s military muscle.
This imbalance makes genuine reform nearly impossible. Political leaders, even those opposed to Hezbollah’s influence, must calculate their positions based not only on the public interest but also on the risk of provoking an armed response. The result is a system in which accountability is selective, governance is paralyzed and corruption thrives in the absence of real checks and balances.
Lebanon’s prolonged economic collapse — marked by currency devaluation, banking failures and mass emigration — has been compounded by political paralysis. International donors have made clear that aid and investment depend on political stability, transparency and a functioning state. None of these are possible while an armed group operates outside the chain of command of the Lebanese Armed Forces.
Beyond the battlefield, the presence of an armed faction outside state control distorts Lebanon’s democratic process
Hani Hazaimeh
The longer the disarmament issue is postponed, the deeper Lebanon sinks into dependency and division. As economic desperation grows, the state’s capacity to assert itself will shrink, making eventual disarmament even harder. The country risks reaching a point where the armed status quo becomes so entrenched that it can only be dismantled through crisis, not consensus.
Disarming Hezbollah will not be easy. It will require a coordinated national strategy that combines political consensus, regional diplomacy and international support. The Lebanese state must reassert itself as the sole legitimate authority over arms within its borders. This is not merely a security measure — it is a prerequisite for national revival.
The process will demand courage from Lebanon’s political class, unity among its fractured institutions and a clear message to both domestic and foreign actors: the era of divided sovereignty must end. Regional partners must also recognize that a stable, unified Lebanon serves the interest of the entire Middle East. Without their support — political, financial and diplomatic — the Lebanese state will struggle to break free from the cycle of dependency and coercion.
In the end, the debate over Hezbollah’s weapons is not just about disarmament; it is about whether Lebanon chooses to be a real state or a geopolitical pawn. A sovereign Lebanon can decide its own foreign policy, rebuild its economy and restore public trust in governance. A Lebanon where an armed faction holds veto power over national decisions will remain trapped in instability, vulnerable to external manipulation and cut off from the opportunities of a changing region.
The choice is urgent. Delay will only make the cost higher and the consequences more severe. Disarmament is not a favor to foreign powers, nor is it an act of hostility toward a single community. It is an act of self-preservation — the only path toward reclaiming Lebanon’s sovereignty, securing its future and honoring the right of its people to live in a state where power is wielded by elected leaders, not by the force of arms.
• Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh