The Lebanese government has again stepped in the stormy waters of disarmament, this time with cabinet approval of the US backed proposal to collect arms of all armed groups in Lebanon, including Hezbollah. Even though Washington and certain internal factions have acclaimed it as one step towards national sovereignty, this decision is opening one of the most sensitive files in Lebanon. Efforts of disarmament of Hezbollah are not new since “several attempts” since the year 2000, particularly following “the 2005 Cedar Revolution”, “the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war”, and “the 2008 Doha Agreement”. They all failed, in large part due to being unable to realistically assess the military capability and political legitimacy as well as social entrenchment of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has openly said it will treat the decision as if it never existed, labelling it a sin by the cabinet. Foreign minister of Iran, Abbas Araghchi indicated, “it was not the first time efforts were made to disarm Hezbollah and that it was up to the group in the end to make the decision.” When the Lebanese cabinet endorsed the aims of the US proposal, Hezbollah Political Council deputy Mahmoud Komati condemned the action as a march of humiliation and giving up to Israel and the US.  He cautioned: “There is no state or government in the world that confronts the resistance in its own territory while the enemy is still there occupying the land and carrying out aggressions against Lebanon daily.”  In short, Hezbollah claims that they will not disarm as long as Israel is present militarily in or around Lebanon.

Hezbollah is an armed militia group which is an influential political and social entity in Lebanon because it has the backing of the Shiites and a presence in the government. Hezbollah operates its own social services and enjoys all the parliamentary seats allocated to Shiites along with its ally, the Amal movement. It holds “13 seats in the Lebanese parliament”, commands “three cabinet positions”, and plays a crucial role in forming and sustaining coalition governments. This is the electoral and institutional presence that gives Hezbollah a wide legitimacy at home. But driven too fast, disarmament would only result in unifying and mobilizing broader Shia classes behind Amal and Hezbollah, instead of unifying the nation. Thus, disarming Hezbollah without providing its constituency with a claim over the future of Lebanon may divide the country.

READ: Hezbollah calls Lebanon’s government decision to disarm non-state groups ‘grave sin’

In 1982, Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia was formed by the Revolutionary Guards of Iran to struggle against Israeli forces in Lebanon. Different from other militias, Hezbollah never disarmed following the war, and kept its arsenal to fight Israel in south Lebanon. Its military wing expanded with time and it claimed to have caused the withdrawal of Israel in 2000. In 2006, Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets against northern Israel with heavy losses and damages. The group is not afraid to brag about the battle that they took on Israeli aggression and dubbed it as the battle of the formidable in might that resulted in a ceasefire and a retreat. Hezbollah Arms are seen as the final resort by many Lebanese supporters against the Israelis. Hezbollah commanders point to the continued Israeli occupation of the Shebaa Farms and parts of southern Lebanon: as one report noted, the group “will not discuss giving up its remaining arsenal until Israel withdraws from five hills it is occupying inside Lebanon and stops almost daily air strikes”.

Critics of the US-Israeli proposal raise the argument that disarming Hezbollah in an unilateral move would rather favor Israel and expose them to further acts of aggression. Hezbollah’s own statement stated that the cabinet decision “fully serves Israel’s interests and leaves Lebanon exposed to the Israeli enemy without any deterrent”. The worry is that with the disarmament of Hezbollah, there would be no one to be on the border other than the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), yet this force is far too less equipped compared to the Israeli military. Israel is threatening that in case Hezbollah goes un-disarmed, Israel will again engage Lebanon in their destructive military campaigns. Lebanese analysts accuse the army of failing to prevent Israeli air strikes in breach of the ceasefire and that without Hezbollah’s deterrence, Beirut would be even more vulnerable, since Israel still holds part of Lebanon.

The varying priorities have contributed to the debate on the US plan of full disarmament in Lebanon. Although President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam have stressed on the right of a state to arms, they are yet to ratify the specifics. The Amal party, Hezbollah’s Shia ally, says rushing may lead to a domestic crisis. By pushing disarmament now, critics argue, it imperils efforts to tackle the group and risks provoking a confrontation with Hezbollah over internal sovereignty — a choice between fighting a “war at home” or, once more, clashing with Israel.

In conclusion, Lebanese view the US-sponsored disarmament pressure a one-sided imposition that disregards the local basis of Hezbollah and the continued role of Israel. Whilst Beirut formally tries to reclaim the monopoly of force by the state, analysts warn that trying to forcefully disarm Hezbollah would be counterproductive. As one pro-Hezbollah commentary said, Lebanon’s leaders would be ignoring the “necessary measures” to defend the country and simply surrendering to foreign directives. Lebanon is left in a dilemma, disarm Hezbollah as the US and Israel insist, or they remain on the sword and risk a new war on home ground.  According to observers, most external powers are in agreement on whether Hezbollah should give up its weapons or not but are in disagreement on how to go about the process without causing chaos.  The stalemate is still in place and the officials of Hezbollah continue to stress that they will never put their weapons aside as long as the threats of Israel exist.

READ: Lebanon’s army to prepare plan for state arms monopoly by year-end, premier says

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.