Analysis: Disarming Hezbollah is a huge task, one that if mismanaged could lead to both domestic unrest and Israeli military action.
Since the formation of a new Lebanese government in February, more than two months after the beginning of the ceasefire with Israel, the international community, and especially the United States, has been increasingly calling on the new cabinet to focus on disarming Hezbollah.
However, even though most of Hezbollah’s military sites south of the Litani River in Southern Lebanon have been placed under the control of the Lebanese army, Hezbollah still possesses arms, especially north of the river.
Although the group has recently been showing some openness in discussing its arms, this does not necessarily mean that it is willing to hand over its entire arsenal anytime soon.
Related
Are we finally seeing a post-Hezbollah Lebanon?
Lebanon
Joe Macaron
Meanwhile, the Lebanese authorities have insisted on disarming Hezbollah. Elected in January, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said in his inaugural speech that he would work to ensure the state’s right to hold a monopoly on weapons.
Moreover, the Lebanese government, led by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, omitted the term “armed resistance” from its ministerial statement for the first time in two decades. Last month, Salam even said that the “page has been turned regarding Hezbollah’s arms after the ministerial declaration”.
Discussions over removing Hezbollah’s weapons have increased after the ceasefire agreement as the group was significantly weakened during the recent conflict with Israel, which started as border skirmishes in October 2023 and escalated into a full-scale war in September 2024.
These talks became even more urgent following a visit to Beirut by US envoy to the Middle East Morgan Ortagus in early April, when she repeatedly called for Hezbollah’s disarmament.
More than 3,950 people were killed in Lebanon between October 2023 and November 2024. Following the ceasefire, dozens more were killed as Israeli airstrikes continued in South Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and more recently the southern suburbs of Beirut.
Lebanon’s dilemma
Although Hezbollah suffered huge military losses in last year’s war with Israel, disarming the group is a challenging task, especially since its arsenal is central to the group’s identity.
The group has previously said that the ceasefire agreement stipulates the group’s disarmament south of the Litani River only. In other words, the group believes that it has the right to hold weapons north of the river as per the ceasefire agreement.
However, the United States and Israel want to disarm Hezbollah completely in all Lebanese territories as soon as possible. Israeli officials have constantly said that if Beirut does not accomplish this task, it will.
At the same time, the Lebanese authorities have refrained from forcibly disarming Hezbollah as this would increase the risk of internal conflict.
 Although Hezbollah suffered huge military losses in last year’s war with Israel, disarming the group is a challenging task, especially since its arsenal is central to the group’s identity. [Getty] |
The takeover of Hezbollah sites south of the Litani River has seemingly happened peacefully, which suggests that there might have been some sort of coordination between the army and the group as no clashes were reported between either side.
However, this scenario may not be repeated for the rest of the sites, especially north of the River, considering the group’s stance.
In 2008, Hezbollah used its military power to forcefully stop a decision taken by the government at the time to dismantle its telecommunication system, leading to days-long armed clashes.
However, the decline in Hezbollah’s influence as a result of the recent war and the severing of its supply line from Syria after the fall of the Syrian regime in December could make Hezbollah more lenient than in 2008.
Despite that, there are certain limits to what could be acceptable to the group. A forceful removal of its arsenal is surely not something Hezbollah could accept. Thus, the only possible path that would not entail violence would be through diplomatic negotiations, whether regional or local.
Given the current dynamics, the Lebanese government is in a difficult position, trying to avoid an Israeli escalation without risking internal strife.
Related
Indefinite occupation? Unpacking Israel’s aims in south Lebanon
Lebanon
Ali Awadah
The approach of Lebanese authorities
Last week, the Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported that President Joseph Aoun will lead, in cooperation with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a direct dialogue with Hezbollah on restricting weapons to the state.
According to Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, there is a gap between Aoun and Salam’s perspectives regarding Hezbollah.
“The prime minister is more forceful about disarming Hezbollah. The president has other calculations, among other things, he understands that in the event the government decides to forcibly disarm Hezbollah, that might lead to internal strife that Lebanon cannot survive,” Khashan told The New Arab.
“Therefore, he wants to use peaceful means, negotiations, trying to find a solution to Hezbollah’s military component,” he explained.
Imad Salamey, a professor of Political Science at the Lebanese American University, believes that despite the fact that Hezbollah and its Iranian backers are in a far more difficult and weakened position militarily, politically, and logistically than in 2008, the new government is aware of the risks of confrontation.
“The new government appears to be pursuing a gradual, voluntary disarmament process through regional agreements, rather than forced measures,” he told TNA.
“The government must approach the issue cautiously to avoid internal conflict. The most effective path forward would be through a national dialogue conference, where a broad Lebanese consensus leads to Hezbollah’s transition away from armed activities and its integration within the state,” Salamey added.
Commenting on whether the Lebanese army could forcibly disarm Hezbollah, Hilal Khashan said that the army “was not designed to take sides against one Lebanese sect”, adding that he “wouldn’t expect the army to take action against Hezbollah”.
 Although Hezbollah has recently been showing some openness in discussing its arms, this does not necessarily mean that it is willing to hand over its entire arsenal anytime soon. [Getty] |
Regional solution?
Khashan believes that the question of Hezbollah requires a regional solution. “The decision to disarm Hezbollah cannot come from within, it has to come from outside Lebanon,” he said.
The United States and Iran began talks on Tehran’s nuclear program in Oman on Saturday, just weeks after US President Donald Trump threatened to bomb Iran if a deal was not reached.
Khashan told TNA that the success of the Lebanese government in disarming Hezbollah “depends on the outcome of the US-Iran talks in Muscat”.
According to Salamey, “the Lebanese government is clearly trying to buy time, hoping that an Iranian-American negotiation will soon take shape and lead to a regional arrangement that includes the voluntary disarmament of Hezbollah”, Salamey said.
Referring to recent British media reports claiming that Iran abandoned its Houthi allies and ordered its military personnel to leave Yemen fearing a direct attack against Tehran, Khashan suggested that Iran will most likely convince Hezbollah to disarm in order to avoid an American attack.
Related
The future of Hezbollah after Lebanon’s ceasefire
Lebanon-Israel conflict
Vittorio Maresca di Serracapriola
Commenting on this, Salamey said that if Iran truly withdrew from Yemen, it would “mark a major strategic retreat by Tehran and could foreshadow similar adjustments in its regional posture, including its relationship with Hezbollah”.
Asked about whether Israel will intensify its operations against Hezbollah soon, Salamey said that “Israel will continue to build pressure, but not to the extent of spoiling US negotiation intentions”.
“For now, Israel will monitor the negotiation progress and respond accordingly. Any setbacks may be encountered with escalation,” he added.
Israel has already recently stepped up its attacks on Lebanon, targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut twice on 28 March and 1 April.
According to Khashan, “escalation depends on the outcome of the talks between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah”, which may be also influenced by the talks in Muscat as they will shape Hezbollah’s position.
“Eventually Hezbollah will disarm or face the resumption of war,” he added.
Malek Jadah is a Lebanese journalist and analyst
