Department of Research, Studies and International News -11-08-2025

Lebanon’s leadership has unveiled a timeline to place all armed groups under state control by the end of 2025, a move widely viewed as targeting Hezbollah, the country’s most prominent resistance force against Israeli aggression.

The announcement follows relentless U.S. pressure in the wake of last year’s Israeli military assault on Lebanon, which claimed over 4,000 lives and left vast areas devastated. Despite a ceasefire declared in November, Israel continues to breach the agreement, maintaining its illegal occupation of five Lebanese border points and carrying out near-daily provocations.

Hezbollah’s weapons have long been a source of contention in Lebanon’s political landscape. Previous attempts to undermine or dismantle its military capabilities have triggered internal unrest. Yet the latest push to disarm the group comes at a moment when it is recovering from significant losses inflicted during the Israeli onslaught, losses that have weakened its position but not erased its influence.

Hezbollah’s rejection of the plan

Hezbollah’s stance is unequivocal: the disarmament plan is unacceptable and serves only Israeli interests. In a strongly worded statement, the group condemned Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s government for “committing a grave sin” by attempting to deprive Lebanon of its means to resist occupation.

While Hezbollah has historically warned that interference with its arsenal could lead to civil conflict, it has so far refrained from military retaliation. Observers note that this restraint may reflect a tactical shift or the group’s current focus on rebuilding its capacities after the war. Limited street protests erupted following the government’s decision, but large-scale mobilisations have yet to occur.

Iran’s position and the regional context

Iran, a founding supporter of Hezbollah since the early 1980s, voiced strong backing for the movement. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stressed that disarmament efforts are doomed to fail because “the power of resistance has proven itself in the field.” He underscored that this is not the first attempt to weaken Hezbollah and warned that the motives are transparent, to protect Israeli military dominance.

However, Iran’s ability to directly support Hezbollah has faced challenges since the conflict. Lebanese authorities have restricted flights from Tehran, and regional shifts, particularly the loss of traditional land routes through Syria, have complicated supply lines for both funding and equipment.

Political friction within Lebanon

Iran’s remarks drew sharp criticism from some Lebanese officials, who accused Tehran of interfering in domestic affairs. Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi issued a formal rejection of Araghchi’s statements, claiming they undermined Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Nevertheless, the government’s disarmament move is far from universally accepted. Salam has admitted that the proposal stems from a U.S.-driven initiative to ensure that weapons remain exclusively in the hands of the state. Such alignment with Washington’s agenda risks deepening Lebanon’s political divisions, especially as opposition voices warn of destabilisation.

Anti-Hezbollah factions, emboldened by the group’s recent losses, are using increasingly assertive language. Elias Hankash of the Kataeb Party openly suggested that the cost of centralising arms under the army might be worth paying.

Economic and social pressures

The backdrop to this political showdown is Lebanon’s economic crisis, compounded by war damage. The World Bank estimates that $11 billion is needed for reconstruction, most urgently in Hezbollah’s strongholds, southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and Beirut’s southern suburbs. The destruction has deepened resentment toward a central government seen as unable or unwilling to shield these areas from ongoing Israeli attacks.

For many in the south, Hezbollah remains the only effective deterrent to Israeli incursions. Disarmament, they argue, would leave Lebanon defenceless and invite further violations.

Hezbollah’s leaders speak out

Senior Hezbollah figures have firmly dismissed the government’s plan. Deputy leader Naim Qassem warned that stripping the resistance of its weapons would amount to inviting Israeli aggression. MP Ali Mokdad described the disarmament resolution as “ink on paper,” while MP Mohammad Raad likened surrendering arms to “national suicide.”

Such statements reflect the movement’s view that its military capacity is not merely a partisan asset but an essential shield for the nation’s territorial integrity.

The fragile situation was further inflamed when six Lebanese soldiers were killed while inspecting what was alleged to be a Hezbollah weapons site in the south. Reports suggest that some locations were booby-trapped during the war to deter Israeli troops, raising the risk of accidental casualties.

Meanwhile, daily Israeli strikes and border violations persist, further eroding trust between the Lebanese state and residents of the south. Locals lament the absence of firm government condemnation of these attacks and fear that disarming Hezbollah would remove the only serious counterweight to Tel Aviv’s ambitions.

Whether Lebanon can, or will, follow through with this U.S.-aligned disarmament plan remains uncertain. The government must navigate intense foreign pressure, internal resistance, and a volatile security environment. With Israel continuing to act with impunity and Lebanon’s reconstruction needs unmet, many see the move as a dangerous gamble that prioritises Western and Israeli agendas over national security.

For Hezbollah and its supporters, the issue is clear: resistance is not a negotiable choice but a necessity. For Washington and its allies, disarmament is the key to reshaping Lebanon’s political balance. Between these opposing visions, Lebanon faces yet another test of its sovereignty and resilience.