Lebanon, a country with a complex social and political structure, has once again come under external and diplomatic pressures. The issue of disarming Hezbollah has, more than ever, become an international concern and is being intensely debated in both domestic and foreign political circles. This project, pursued with the support of the United States and some of its regional and Western allies, has been raised at a time when parts of Lebanese territory remain under Israeli occupation, and the Lebanese army, due to financial and logistical weakness, lacks the necessary capacity to fill the potential defence vacuum resulting from Hezbollah’s disarmament. This situation has led many analysts to ask: does the disarmament of Hezbollah mean strengthening Lebanon’s stability, or, on the contrary, will it place the country on a path of instability and greater threats?
In recent months, Beirut has witnessed numerous diplomatic comings and goings. From meetings with Iranian officials to visits by American delegations, all point to the intensification of regional rivalries in Lebanon. The United States has repeatedly asked Lebanese officials to take concrete steps toward disarming Hezbollah, while Israel continues to violate ceasefires and commit border aggressions. These demands clearly demonstrate unilateralism: Lebanon is expected to relinquish its primary deterrent force without Israel making any reciprocal commitment to halt its occupation and aggressions. In this context, some Lebanese leaders, such as Nabih Berri, have emphasised that any discussion of disarmament cannot be separated from Israel’s obligations to withdraw from Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah’s stance in the face of these pressures has been explicit and firm. Hezbollah leaders have repeatedly declared that under no circumstances will the movement lay down its arms, because these weapons are the only deterrent against Israeli aggressions. The recent remarks of Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, who spoke of a “decisive battle,” once again conveyed the message that disarming the resistance not only threatens Lebanon’s security but also paves the way for further Israeli occupation. These positions have drawn negative reactions from some domestic factions that expected Hezbollah to show more flexibility in the face of external pressures. But the reality is that the weakness of the Lebanese army suffering from budget shortages, lack of equipment, and deep dependence on foreign aid means that removing Hezbollah without creating a credible defensive alternative would leave Lebanon completely defenseless.
The dimensions of this issue are not confined to Lebanon alone. The project of disarming Hezbollah is part of a broader strategy that the United States and Israel are pursuing in the region. In recent years, Israel, through targeted attacks on Hezbollah’s infrastructure in Lebanon and Syria, has sought to weaken this movement. At the same time, certain groups aligned with the United States in Syria and Iraq have targeted the logistical routes of the resistance. These actions clearly show that disarming Hezbollah is not merely a domestic issue but rather part of a regional plan to limit the capabilities of resistance forces and to redesign the balance of power in the Middle East.
The potential consequences of such a plan are vast. First, Lebanon’s national deterrence would be severely weakened. Over the past two decades, Hezbollah has played a key role in defending Lebanon’s territorial integrity from the liberation of southern Lebanon in 2000 to resisting the Israeli army in the 2006 war and playing a major role in combating terrorist groups like ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. Eliminating such a force at a time when the Lebanese army cannot fill this vacuum could gravely endanger the country’s security. Second, the risk of serious internal conflict looms large. Lebanon’s sectarian structure and the presence of a significant number of Hezbollah-aligned forces within the army could turn any attempt at forced disarmament into the start of another civil war, a war whose consequences would engulf not only Lebanon but the entire region. Third, Lebanon’s dependence on the West would inevitably deepen. In the absence of Hezbollah, the Lebanese army would become more reliant than ever on Western financial and military aid, endangering national sovereignty and independence.
READ: Lebanon begins collection of arms from Palestinian refugee camps
But the significance of this issue does not stop at the level of Lebanon or even the Middle East. The effort to disarm Hezbollah must be viewed in a broader framework that relates to the relations between the Global North and the Global South. As we see in Palestine, Yemen, and other parts of the Global South, Western powers are striving to eliminate or contain any resistance force that operates outside the international order they favor. This is not merely about weakening a political-military group in Lebanon but about restricting the capacity of the Global South to resist Western hegemony. From this perspective, Hezbollah’s disarmament is an example of a global policy in which “national sovereignty” and the “monopoly of arms” are invoked only when they align with the interests of dominant powers.
For this reason, it can be said that Lebanon’s future, under the project of disarming Hezbollah, is extremely uncertain and fraught with danger. This project, though outwardly promoted with slogans such as strengthening the central government and national sovereignty, could in practice make the country more vulnerable to external aggressions and turn it into a stage for the implementation of broader regional and international strategies. Hezbollah’s historical experience in liberating southern Lebanon, resisting during the 2006 war, and fighting terrorism in Syria demonstrates that this movement is more than just a political-military force; it is part of the regional deterrence equation whose elimination could have consequences extending beyond Lebanon. If this project is carried out, not only will Lebanon’s security and stability be endangered, but it will also send a message to other resistance forces in the Global South: any force that challenges the existing order will, sooner or later, be targeted for elimination.
Today, Lebanon is not merely facing an internal crisis; it is caught in a struggle whose roots lie in the unequal structures of the international system. The pressure to disarm Hezbollah is not simply an attempt to shift the balance of power in Lebanon; this pattern has been repeated in various parts of the world. From the nationalisation of the oil industry in Mossadegh’s Iran to today’s resistances in Palestine and Lebanon, the dominant powers have conveyed a single message: any alternative operating outside the framework of global capitalism and Western hegemony must be contained or eliminated.
In this context, the project of disarming Hezbollah is not only a threat to Lebanon’s national security but also a symbol of a global policy that cannot tolerate the independence and resistance of the Global South. Capitalism and imperialism have historically shown that they will stop at nothing from sanctions and coups to war and blockade to protect their interests. Today, the same logic is being repeated: eliminating resistance in Lebanon, paving the way for greater domination in the region, and sending a deterrent message to all similar movements worldwide.
From this perspective, Lebanon’s future is not merely that of a small country on the eastern Mediterranean, but a reflection of a larger struggle between Western hegemony and the efforts of the Global South for independence and justice. Whether Lebanon can withstand these pressures is a question whose answer will not only determine Lebanon’s destiny but may also signal whether the world order is truly moving toward genuine multipolarity or will remain under the domination of capitalist unilateralism.
OPINION: The crisis of disarming Hezbollah: Lebanon on the edge
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.