On August 31, 2025, Lebanon’s political landscape was thrust into the spotlight yet again as Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri publicly challenged Washington’s push for the rapid disarmament of Hezbollah, the powerful Iran-backed militant group and political party. Berri’s remarks, delivered during a solemn address commemorating the disappearance of the prominent Shite cleric Moussa al-Sadr, underscored the complexity and volatility of Lebanon’s security situation—a drama unfolding as the nation recovers from a devastating war and faces mounting international pressure.
Berri, a key Hezbollah ally and a seasoned political negotiator, didn’t mince words in his address. According to the Associated Press, he insisted, “We are open to discussing the fate of these weapons, which we Lebanese see as honorable, within the framework of a calm and consensual dialogue.” He emphasized that such a process must be in line with the policies of President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, both of whom ascended to power earlier this year promising to unify all arms under the Lebanese military and security agencies. Yet, Berri’s tone was unmistakably critical of the United States, which he accused of pushing an agenda that “goes beyond the principle of restricting weapons.”
The timing of Berri’s speech was no accident. Just hours before he spoke, Israeli jets launched a series of intense airstrikes over Lebanon’s southern Nabatieh province, damaging shops and homes. Israel claimed the targets were Hezbollah infrastructure, but for many in Lebanon, the strikes were another grim reminder of the ever-present threat of escalation. Videos shared by local media showed large plumes of smoke rising from the rolling hills, though there were no immediate reports of casualties. Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency documented the aftermath, painting a picture of a region still on edge.
At the heart of the current standoff is a contentious plan, first outlined in a ceasefire agreement brokered last November. That deal, which Berri himself helped negotiate, called for Hezbollah to disarm in southern Lebanon below the Litani River. In exchange, Israel would withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory and halt its near-daily strikes. Disarmament of Hezbollah and other non-state actors in other parts of the country was to be addressed at a later stage. However, as reported by the Associated Press, U.S. officials have made it clear to Lebanese authorities that Israel will not consider withdrawal until a credible disarmament plan is put into action.
The Lebanese military, under the leadership of President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam, is expected to present such a plan to the government by the end of 2025. The proposal, based on recommendations from U.S. envoy Tom Barrack, has garnered support from the upper echelons of Lebanon’s government. During a recent visit to Beirut, Barrack praised the government’s decision to pursue disarmament, signaling strong U.S. backing for the initiative. Yet, the path forward is anything but straightforward.
Hezbollah’s leadership, for its part, has drawn a red line. Sheikh Naim Kassim, the group’s deputy leader, has refused to even discuss the issue of disarmament until Israel withdraws from five strategic hilltops in southern Lebanon and ceases its strikes. Hezbollah maintains that it has already fulfilled its obligations under the ceasefire by disarming in the south, while Israel accuses the group of covertly rebuilding its military capabilities in the same region. The resulting impasse has left Lebanese authorities in a bind, fearful of the prospect of a direct confrontation between the national army and Hezbollah—a scenario many believe would plunge the country into further chaos.
“What the U.S. is proposing now goes beyond the principle of restricting weapons,” Berri asserted, echoing widespread concerns among Hezbollah supporters and many Lebanese who see the group’s arsenal as a vital deterrent against Israeli aggression. Critics of Hezbollah, however, argue that the time is ripe for a decisive move. They point to the aftermath of Israel’s large-scale attacks in Lebanon, which killed several senior Hezbollah military officials, and the recent ousting of Bashar Assad—Hezbollah’s key ally—in Syria in December 2024. For these factions, the shifting regional dynamics present a rare opportunity to rein in Hezbollah’s military wing and bring all arms under state control.
The roots of the current crisis stretch back to October 8, 2023, when Hezbollah began launching rockets across the border in support of Hamas, a day after the latter’s massive attack on Israel from Gaza. What started as a low-level conflict soon spiraled, and by September 2024, Lebanon and Israel were embroiled in a full-scale war. The toll was staggering: more than 4,000 lives lost and $11 billion in destruction across Lebanon, according to the World Bank. The scars of that conflict are still fresh, and the nation’s battered infrastructure is a daily reminder of the cost of war.
Despite the devastation, the political debate over Hezbollah’s weapons remains deeply polarized. Supporters of the group, including Berri and his allies, frame the arsenal as a necessary shield against Israeli threats and a symbol of Lebanese resistance. They argue that any discussion about disarmament must be conducted within a national consensus, free from external pressure. “We are open to discussing the fate of these weapons,” Berri reiterated, “within the framework of a calm and consensual dialogue.”
On the other side, Hezbollah’s opponents—bolstered by U.S. and Israeli support—see the group’s military power as an obstacle to Lebanese sovereignty and a source of perpetual instability. Washington, in particular, views the current moment as a window of opportunity, especially after the loss of Assad’s regime in Syria, to press for a swift and comprehensive disarmament. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that Israeli troops could begin withdrawing from southern Lebanon if Beirut follows through on its disarmament commitments, though he has offered few specifics.
In the background, ordinary Lebanese citizens watch anxiously as the political elite debate the nation’s fate. Many fear that the fragile peace could unravel at any moment, especially if the army and Hezbollah are forced into open confrontation. The prospect of another round of violence, after so much suffering and loss, is almost unthinkable for a country already stretched to its limits.
As the year draws to a close, the Lebanese government faces a daunting challenge: how to navigate the competing demands of powerful international actors, the deep-seated fears and loyalties of its own people, and the ever-present risk of renewed conflict. The coming months will test Lebanon’s ability to forge a national consensus and chart a path toward lasting stability—one that honors the sacrifices of the past while safeguarding the promise of the future.