Disarming Hezbollah Risks Serious Consequences; Lebanon Government Faces Crisis
Recently, Lebanon’s Council of ministers approved a plan to “monopolize weapons in the hands of the state,” effectively aimed at disarming Hezbollah. The Lebanese cabinet announced that the plan’s implementation will begin with the Lebanese army, although no specific timeline has been set. Ministerial sources also warned about the army’s limited capacity.
The Lebanese army’s confidential plan to disarm Hezbollah outlines five phases to restrict weapons exclusively to state control.The process starts with military operations in southern Litani, then moves between Litani River and Awali River regions, followed by Beirut and its suburbs, then beqaa Valley. The fifth phase involves state monopoly over all weapons throughout Lebanon.
In this context, we spoke with Emad Najjar, an international affairs expert. His full comments follow:
The army’s proposed plan for monopolizing arms lacks a set timetable. What does this absence mean for disarming hezbollah?
To answer this question, we must recognize that Hezbollah is a popular association deeply rooted across all sectors of Lebanese society-cultural, political, economic, social welfare-and defense-related areas. It consists of institutions responsible for safeguarding Lebanon’s borders and territorial integrity and also protecting its people. Popular support prevents effective disarmament of Hezbollah.
When examining the army’s proposal approved by the cabinet-with representatives from Hezbollah and Amal Movement walking out-it’s clear that key Shia resistance groups were excluded from decision-making processes. Those who voted were non-Muslim factions within Lebanon.
The lack of a timetable reflects a governmental crisis; policymakers understand that any attempt to disarm Hezbollah under any label would entail serious risks and exceed the capabilities of the military force involved. If Lebanon’s army were truly capable-as evident in past conflicts like the 2006 war-it could have defended territorial integrity without relying on Hezbollah’s efforts.
Hezbollah not only defends Lebanese citizens but also supports Palestinians. It has made significant sacrifices through leaders like Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and senior commanders.
The absence of deadlines allows authorities plausible deniability if implementation stalls or fails; it shields them from accountability toward opponents both inside Lebanon and abroad.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah enjoys widespread admiration among Muslims, Christians-and othre minorities-for its resilience and public service across communities throughout Lebanon-which complicates government efforts considerably.
Why is the content of this military plan classified? Does secrecy stem from governmental weakness or other reasons?
Hezbollah and allied forces do not consider this proposal secret-they are fully aware who issued it under what conditions along with its phased structure.
However-as part of political strategy-the cabinet refrains from informing public opinion due to anticipated backlash.
Even prior to implementation protests have erupted against it nationwide.
The plan reportedly includes five phases: what actions will each stage involve?
This refers primarily to geographical progression: regional demilitarization aims gradually normalize acceptance among populations.
Some groups facing pressure aligned symbolically by surrendering small arms-but none fully gave up their weapons completely.
the first phase targets South Lebanon-the stronghold under partial control by Hezbollah-then expands northward toward Beirut where resistance forces would face greater restrictions during phase three as their military equipment diminishes considerably.
Final steps aim at nationwide elimination which experts predict will be highly tense especially around southern borders controlled heavily by these factions.
Is ther consensus around implementing this arms monopoly? Can it realistically succeed within Lebanese society?
No consensus exists since opposition parties walked out before approval-signaling deep division within governing bodies alone.
Executing such a program risks huge social costs amid sectarian tensions prevalent nationally;
adversaries framed mainly as American-Zionist expect either full victory allowing hostile incursions into sovereign territory-or internal conflict between pro-resistance citizens against those aligned politically with Western-backed leadership pushing such policies through President Michel Aoun’s governance.
What level of involvement do America and Israel have regarding last Friday night’s approval concerning weapon monopolization enforced through Lebanese forces?
This policy is best understood as an American-designed initiative reinforced jointly by Hebrew-Arab-Western coordination.
Regional developments around proscribed efforts targeting Palestinian actors-even without US backing-the Israeli regime could hardly implement such measures effectively locally;
thus Washington proposes frameworks dovetailing Israeli operational goals across infrastructure networks enabling direct influence throughout southern Levant proscribed zones hence their active partnership therein cannot be overlooked whatsoever.’
< img alt = " Disarming Hezb ol lah has d ange rous c onseque nces ; c risis i n Leba non g ove rnm ent " height = "413" src = " https :// media . mehr news . com / d / 2025 /09 /08 /4 /5670761 . jpg ? ts=1757322846369 " width = "620"
how does Hezb ol lah regard t he p lan ,an d ho w do re sistance grou ps an d supp orters f ee l ab out t his di sm armamen t eff ort ?
Hezb ol lah conside rs impleme ntation o f th e strate gy mpractic abl e .Despite t heir resolut ion , they seek avoid acc elerat ing tens ions as executing such policy poses high c osts even fo r deploye rs. From their v ie wpoint , failure represent s cert ain wh ile acce ptance i s ab sent
Leba nese pop ulation wi ll re sist sh arp move s aga inst su ch powerful iconic fo rc es wi thin socie ty caus ing marked stablit y downgrades Shi te movem ent avo id pro longed nat ionw ide unresol ved int ernal confli ct given secu rity priorit ies place d ab ove short-term policy aim s
Hezbo lla h chooses patient strat egic responses espe cially durin g cross-border pressur es aim ed at protec ting civil ians fro m hospita bles sites misd ire ctio ns but al ways ready react de fiantly if nation violat ed direc tly b y foes alike .
Last ly ; wha t lim itations did Le bane se mi lit ary exec utiv es mention regar ding capabiliti es despit e inte ntions at enforcing poli cy based on reac tion star ted Frida y ni ght
Lebane se mi lit ary don ot ev en qualif y as pop ular moveme nt qua nti ty wise neithe r equ ipmen ts fund mental required defen sehaving lacked firme commitments eff ectiveness agai ns intrus ions thi rd-parties inclu ding Israel historically standing br ea kmaker simultaneously occurring milit ia protecti ves ord ers reco gnise crucial rol espe ciall ytook lives respons ibly foll owing inc idi dents over years Hebz ollah ha ve stre ngthened w bilittl e coopera tion sincere colleag ues acknow ledge li mits on bot h lev els includin g revela nts kill counts insuffi ciencies wo rkforce lower morale less eithe risec urrenc ess whose rele vant findings valid ate legit imacy questio ning human concr ernssand sa fety overal l result contribute con tinui ng destabilizat ion threaten national coherent defense system
