Lebanon is on edge as U.S.-led diplomatic pressure mounts on Beirut to disarm Hezbollah, while the group’s leadership rebuffs any such move, calling it a service to Israeli interests. With the government preparing to discuss disarmament for the first time, the country stands at a critical political and security juncture.

Hezbollah Rejects Disarmament Demands

Hezbollah’s deputy leader, Sheikh Naim Qassem, responded swiftly to growing international calls—particularly from the United States—to dismantle the group’s arsenal. He called such demands “serving the Israeli project” and emphasized that Hezbollah’s weapons are central to its identity and regional role.

“Even if Israel withdraws from all Lebanese territories, this would not lead to disarmament,” Qassem said in a televised address.

Analysts described Hezbollah’s stance as entrenched, tied to Tehran's strategic interests and not merely to Lebanese defense needs.

Lebanese Government Moves Toward Disarmament Debate

In a rare political development, Lebanon’s government plans to hold a formal session to discuss a timeline for Hezbollah's disarmament—an unprecedented move in the country's post-war history. Political analyst Waddah Ayyash described it as a “historic step,” but questioned the government’s ability to enforce such a policy given Hezbollah’s power on the ground.

“Does the state even have the means to implement such a decision?” Ayyash asked, citing decades of Hezbollah’s independent military build-up.

Historical Parallels and Military Constraints

Memories of Hezbollah’s violent reaction to state actions—such as the 2008 armed takeover of Beirut—loom large. The Lebanese Army, led by General Rodolphe Heikal, affirmed its commitment to UN Resolution 1701, which mandates that only state forces bear arms. However, Heikal also acknowledged the army’s limited resources, hinting more at symbolic commitment than enforcement capacity.

Economic Aid and the Weapon Dilemma

International donors, especially from the Arab world, have made it clear: no reconstruction aid will come to Lebanon without serious steps to control Hezbollah’s weapons. This echoes the post-2006 war experience, when aid flows stalled due to repeated outbreaks of conflict.

“There will be no recovery with weapons outside the state,” Ayyash warned.

Tehran’s Strategic Hold

At the root of the crisis lies Iran’s influence. Ayyash noted that key decisions regarding Hezbollah’s weapons are “not made in Beirut but in Tehran,” reinforcing the belief that Hezbollah’s arsenal is a regional tool rather than a national asset.

Lebanon at the Brink

With the government set to meet next week, Lebanon faces multiple threats: internal unrest, external pressure, and the risk of another armed conflict. The choice is stark—move toward disarmament and national sovereignty or face prolonged isolation and potential implosion.

“The real question now isn’t if Hezbollah will disarm,” one analyst noted, “but whether Lebanon can survive the process.”