The ongoing debate in Lebanon regarding the government's stance on weapon bans has reached a new intensity, fueled by mounting pressures from the United States and internal divisions among political factions. While the Lebanese government asserts its commitment to adhering to its ministerial obligations, the reality on the ground presents a more complicated picture. On March 18, 2025, during an interview on Al Hurra, Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Tariq Mitri stated, "It is impossible to have a specific timeline for disarming Hezbollah by force." This admission reflects the consciousness of the government about the complexities and potential backlash involved in attempts to confront Hezbollah directly.
Mitri, along with President Najib Mikati and Culture Minister Ghassan Salameh, is one of the trio tasked with articulating the government's political position. His statement is significant, considering he was involved in drafting the 1701 resolution that aims to prevent hostilities following the 2006 conflict between Lebanon and Israel. Clearly, Mitri understands the delicate balance of power and the liberation implications of any aggressive disarmament strategy, stemming from his deep-seated engagement in Lebanon's political landscape.
This complexity is exacerbated by Hezbollah's own responses to any suggestion of disarmament. Prominent Hezbollah figures, like Sheikh Ali Dimoukh, have made it clear: "When there is an occupation, weapons adorn men; this is a right we cannot renounce." This sentiment underscores the party's deep entrenchment in Lebanese society and its justification of armed resistance based on perceived external threats.
Moreover, as Minister of Environment Tamara Al-Zein articulated during her appearance on Al Hurra, "The priority is currently the Israeli withdrawal; after that, reconstruction, and later we can arrange our internal affairs." Her comments have sparked further debate about the current focus of the Lebanese government, suggesting that addressing Hezbollah's arms may not be on the immediate agenda despite U.S. expectations. This highlights the prioritization of immediate national concerns over international obligations.
Even as the Lebanese government navigates these turbulent waters, the U.S. is distinctly pressing Lebanon for changes to its relationship with Hezbollah. Sources indicate that the Trump administration has mapped out a strategy aiming for the gradual dismantling of Iranian arms throughout the region, targeting not just Hezbollah but also factions like the Houthis and the Popular Mobilization Forces. The clock is reportedly ticking for Lebanese authorities to comply with these demands, raising broader fears of what could happen if they fail.
Some members of the Lebanese political landscape are advocating for a strategic alignment with the Iraqi model, where negotiations led armed factions, like the Popular Mobilization Forces, to disarm in exchange for greater political engagement and protection from U.S. military actions. This sentiment has been suggested amongst ministers connected to the Lebanese Forces and the Justice Minister, who argue for proactive governmental initiatives to prevent potential escalation.
However, complicating these aspirations, the article reveals the absence of any credible means within the government to achieve this model effectively. High-level sources point out that Hezbollah’s commitment to keeping its arms and Iran's enduring influence keeps Lebanon in a delicate balance suspended between local and international pressures. Add to this mix the fear that any confrontation with Hezbollah could provoke significant civil discord, considering the party's threats to instigate conflict if efforts against its arsenal are perceived as attacks on Lebanese Shiites.
This precarious situation has some officials advocating a more cooperative resistance against U.S. pressures, leaning on the idea that direct confrontation with powerful states or organizations like Hezbollah may yield catastrophic consequences. As Mitri puts it, the government finds itself unable to take the expeditional route offered by international accords, having to navigate the nuanced and painful realities of internal political alignments.
In light of the divide over weapon disarmament, Hezbollah's assertive responses, and external pressures from the U.S., Lebanon's political landscape remains deeply fragmented. Senior political figures such as Hassan Fadlallah remind us why it matters: "When the state relinquishes its responsibilities, the people will bear the responsibility," an acknowledgment of the potential fallout if the government fails to regain control of the situation. Ultimately, the Lebanese government will have to tread carefully on the knife's edge between asserting sovereignty and appeasing competing interests in a highly charged security environment.
