Disarming Hezbollah would ...
Page 1
The American envoy to Beirut, Tom Barrack, has proposed that disarmament be executed by the Lebanese army, with a clear timeline for implementation. Yet, all indications suggest the army is reluctant to resort to force. Military leaders are wary of being dragged into an armed confrontation with Hezbollah, knowing that compulsory disarmament would be futile without the group’s consent.
Given the army’s own sectarian composition — which includes Shia, Sunni, and supporters of the resistance axis — pressing it into forced disarmament risks sparking internal tensions and undermining the army itself. Senior officers appear well aware that the issue is being dictated from abroad and that armed action would push Lebanon to the brink of chaos. For this reason, many Lebanese are seeking a negotiated settlement rather than coercion, which would never result in the complete disarmament of Hezbollah.
Lebanese political elders argue that the starting point must be a national defense strategy, enabling the country to secure its borders and territorial integrity. Such a plan would require coordination between the army and the resistance to guard the southern frontier. Weakening Hezbollah’s military presence there would, they warn, open the door for Israel to advance as far as Beirut.
Equally crucial are binding guarantees from all parties that, if Hezbollah were to lay down arms, Israel would refrain from attacking Lebanon. History has shown, however, that the US has failed to provide such assurances or rein in Israel.
In sum, disarming Hezbollah would place the security of Lebanon — and indeed the wider region — in jeopardy. Forced disarmament through military action is bound to fail. Unless Hezbollah itself agrees, no faction inside Lebanon has the capacity to compel it to give up its weapons. Talks between Hezbollah, the government, and the army command are ongoing in search of compromise. Yet Lebanese leaders are acutely aware of the dangers: a reckless move could set the country on an irreversible path toward civil war.
For external actors such as the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, only their own interests matter. Lebanon’s internal security, and the potential toll of a new civil conflict on its people, is of little concern to them.
Resistance forces in Lebanon remain firmly opposed to any coercive disarmament. The current negotiations appear aimed at identifying peaceful solutions that preserve the balance of power and safeguard Lebanon’s national security. Above all, avoiding civil war is the overriding concern for Lebanon’s political, military, and intellectual elite as they try to weather this intricate situation.