By Robert Inlakesh

To properly understand what Hezbollah’s disarmament would mean, we must look at the arguments made against the armed movement first and address these points from the perspective of a disarmament proponent.

The Lebanese Cabinet approved a plan this Friday, which seeks the total disarmament of all armed groups inside the country. The plot is a US-imposed one that targets Hezbollah, an attempt to achieve the war goals that Israel failed to complete on the ground last year and to erode Lebanon’s sovereignty once and for all.

Lebanon’s military is now set to initiate its plan to disarm Hezbollah, a goal which they will aim to achieve by the end of the year according to the nation’s media. Commenting on this plan, which was submitted to the government but has not been revealed to the public, the country’s information minister Paul Morcos, stated the following:

“The Lebanese army will begin implementing the plan, but in accordance with the available capabilities, which are limited in terms of logistics, material and human resources”.

While pro-US and sectarian voices inside the country are supporting this initiative, the majority of the country’s population disagrees with the move, meaning that Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam is actively going against the Democratic will of his own people in pursuing this agenda.

According to polling data, collected and published by Lebanon’s Consultative Center for Studies and Documentation in early August, 58% of the public say they oppose Hezbollah surrendering its weapons without a national defense strategy being established first.

What is even more telling were the other results of the polling data: 71.7% said they don’t believe the Lebanese army could defend the country from an Israeli attack; 76% answered that Beirut’s diplomatic moves would not prove successful at deterring Israel; while 73% said they believe events in Syria to be an existential threat to their security.

Reading these answers, what is quickly identifiable is the fact that most Lebanese understand that their country faces two major threats, from both Israel and Syria. However, reflecting the contradictions in the thinking of a portion of the Lebanese public, they are able to point out clear threats to their own survival, yet a segment of them still opt to seize Hezbollah’s weapons anyway, while acknowledging that without them, they are defenseless.

Axis under Siege? The US-Israeli Plan to Isolate Iran before the Next War

In Lebanon, US and Arab Gulf-funded media outlets, as well as political movements, NGOs, and local leadership, are paid handsomely to push anti-Hezbollah rhetoric around the clock. Some of these anti-Hezbollah advocates are opportunists, while others are driven by sectarian hatred.

To properly understand what Hezbollah’s disarmament would mean, we must look at the arguments made against the armed movement first and address these points from the perspective of a disarmament proponent.

Hezbollah and Lebanese Sovereignty

One of the most prominent arguments of anti-Hezbollah Lebanese figures revolves around the idea of sovereignty. They argue that because the group is backed by Iran militarily and financially, it represents a foreign entity and even an “Iranian occupation”.

This is the exact narrative that US envoy Morgan Ortagus, an open Zionist, communicated upon her latest visit to Beirut, telling journalists that Hezbollah is not even Lebanese. In fact, this was stated right after American envoy Tom Barrack had called Lebanese journalists “animalistic” and ordered them to act “civilised”. 

These US politicians do not visit Beirut with the promise of financial rehabilitation; their primary issue is not reconstruction, aiding Lebanon towards a path for prosperity and transparency, no, their only true concern has been disarming Hezbollah. This goal is one that they seek to achieve as Israel actively expands its military occupation in southern Lebanon, while maintaining a free hand to bombard the country at will.

For those who live in Lebanon, the army behaves as a glorified police force and not an actual military. The US serves as a force that dictates what weapons and roles the Lebanese Army plays. It will not permit it to possess strategic defensive capabilities, nor the know-how necessary for any form of national defense against its regional adversaries. Even when the Lebanese Armed Forces confronted the threat of Al-Qaeda and Daesh along its border, it was forced to call upon Hezbollah to defend the country.

This is not because the generals and soldiers of the Army do not want to defend their country, it is because the US will not allow them to. Although no national census, nor reports on what percentage of the military are from each sect in the country, even Israel’s own internal estimates say that Shia Muslims make up 50% of the armed forces.

Netanyahu isn’t Just Talking About ‘Greater Israel’, He is Creating It

Even if we take the most conservative estimates, that still puts the percentage of Shia in the army at around 30%, who will not participate in a campaign against their own towns and villages. Hezbollah and the Amal movement are no opponents of the Lebanese Army, they recognise them as a unifying force and consider their fallen as martyrs, even when performing duties like removing weapons in the south of the country.

Ultimately, when push comes to shove, the Lebanese Army is likely to split apart if it is ordered to shed the blood of the Shia population and would much rather avoid dragging the country towards civil war. Although it is impossible to precisely predict what would happen under these circumstances, we could end up seeing a similar transformation inside the country as happened in Yemen with the emergence of Ansarallah’s government in Sana’a. This would certainly mean war with Israel and perhaps trigger action from Syrian armed groups too.

This then brings us back to the idea that Hezbollah is a foreign entity and doesn’t represent Lebanon. Some would even use the analysis above to argue this.

The reality in Lebanon is that the Shia are the largest, or according to some estimates the second largest, sect in the country. Therefore, sidelining them and attempting to disenfranchise them, due to their religious beliefs, would be tantamount to denying that they are even Lebanese people.

The exercise could be performed when it comes to whether the Lebanese Sunni, Maronites, other Christian denominations, Druze, etc, are Lebanese because of their links to this or that country or foreign movement, or that their beliefs don’t conform to whatever is said to be “truly Lebanese”. This is the kind of sectarian thought that is currently tearing neighbouring Syria apart and eroding its sovereignty, stirring ethnic and religious violence that is encouraging separatism all across the country.

So what is the answer to a Lebanese citizen who holds the belief that all the nation’s weapons should be in the hands of the State? It is simple. There must be a strategy to integrate Hezbollah into the fold of the Lebanese Army itself and to ensure the US has no control over it. However, Washington’s position on this has been a total rejection of such a strategy, which even Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun had spoken of earlier this year.

Hezbollah possesses the weapons and the know-how to defend the country. Although it suffered a major blow in September of 2024, it still proved capable of preventing the Israeli military from occupying villages like Khiam in the south and blocking them from achieving their goal of reaching the Litani River.

Almost three decades ago, back in 1997, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had asserted that Israel would not withdraw from its occupation of southern Lebanon until Hezbollah was fully disarmed. In 2000, due to the stiff resistance put up by Hezbollah, Israel finally withdrew. 

Inside the US-Israeli Plan to Disarm Hezbollah, Hamas and the PMU

Then, in 2006, the Israelis sought to invade and reoccupy southern Lebanon, but were defeated by Hezbollah. What came next was 17 years of deterrence, during which the Israelis didn’t dare attack Lebanon, and in 2022, the threat of resistance by Hezbollah alone had forced the Israeli government to grant Lebanon its maritime borders, enabling it the opportunity to access its potential treasure trove of natural gas in the Mediterranean.

When the PLO decided to disarm and relocate its leadership to Tunisia in 1982, Israel occupied southern Lebanon, used its sectarian militias to carry out civilian massacres, and subjugated the population of the south to the daily horrors of occupation. This is why Hezbollah was formed in the first place: to resist, liberate, and protect the country. 

Iran, its primary backer, did not choose to change the nation, silence the opposition, and set up a Ponzi scheme economy that led Lebanon to financial collapse. Instead, the Iranians provided the funds for social programs, food and medical aid, reconstruction, and of course, weapons for self-defense. This aid not only benefited the Shia population, but evidently, they were the primary beneficiaries. 

Lebanon is the most open nation in the entire region today. Nowhere else do you have political parties and a free press that reports from the perspective of every conceivable group or organisation. Everything from pro-US to Hezbollah-controlled media operates inside the country.

Also, keep in mind that Hezbollah has never militarily challenged the Lebanese Army, never fought a conflict against the Lebanese people, and never threatened to take over by force. Even as a range of anti-Hezbollah governments ruled the country, it did not attempt this when it could have achieved such a goal and still can.

How to Actually Disarm Hezbollah?

Let us ignore all the established facts and consider the arguments of the anti-Hezbollah Lebanese. Instead, let us consider the perspective of a self-described Lebanese nationalist or sectarian anti-Shia campaigner.

First, dealing with the Nationalist perspective, they argue that Hezbollah has to go because this means unifying Lebanon under one banner and one gun. They advertise this as a principle-based approach, not necessarily a logical one. In other words, it is an argument rooted in ideological grounds.

For the sake of argument here, we must assume the authenticity of this approach and also make the assumption that we are addressing someone who has reached this conclusion independently.

If the weapons of Hezbollah must be seized by the Lebanese Army, then an approach would have to be taken that safeguards the Lebanese national interests. These are sovereignty, public security, social cohesion, and ensuring that Lebanon can exercise its rights in order to proceed as a viable State. 

One, on the issue of sovereignty, it is well established that Hezbollah is the most powerful armed force in the country, which has proven in the past to safeguard sovereignty. Therefore, without forming a national defence strategy prior to disarmament, this hands over the monopoly on violence to the United States, Israel, and even neighbouring Syrian groups. 

Now, Iran may be taken out of the equation when it comes to foreign influence, yet the Arab Gulf States, the collective Wes,t and Israel will all have a free hand. In essence, what this move achieves, without an army capable of safeguarding national security, is giving a free hand for Israel to occupy more territory. Exactly this occurred in neighbouring Syria, following the collapse of the Syrian Arab Army, and the Israeli military continues to expand its occupation in the south of the country. 

There is also the threat that a large number of armed militants could choose to launch a cross border assault on Lebanon, which would overwhelm the Lebanese Army. Syria is also extremely unstable and a sudden collapse of its current administration could lead to a resurgence of sectarian groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates that seek to occupy the entire Levant. Even in the absence of this, Syria based groups have carried out massacres against groups like the Alawites, so they could choose to come after the Shia, Christians and Druze in Lebanon too.

Remember that the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU) were formed in order to combat the ISIS insurgency in Iraq, as the US and its Western allies failed to eliminate the threat alongside the Iraqi forces belonging to Baghdad alone. Disarmament, without any defence strategy is therefore a recipe for national suicide and the end of any semblence of sovereignty.

Two, on the public security front, an attempt to disarm Hezbollah will also bring with it baggage due to the campaign being total disarmament of all groups throughout the country. As we have seen in the case of Syria, where the new government in Damascus does not possess the capability to carry out such a nationwide campaign, many groups will refuse.

In the case of these countless armed groups, we aren’t just talking about the well organised militias and organisations belonging to a whole range of parties, we are also talking about criminal gangs, local armed tribes and families who possess weaponry. Seizing one group’s weapons could quickly open the space for another to begin settling scores, allow for certain underground terrorist cells to rear their heads and ignite various regions into bloody street battles, including in the Palestinian refugee camps.

Why Syria’s Instability Matters: The Media’s Failure to Tell the Story

Forget Hezbollah for a moment, just simply consider the less responsible and unhinged armed groups that will be given a free hand.

Three, on the question of social cohesion, it can be expected that the move to go after the weapons of Hezbollah by force will lead to sectarian bloodshed, even if limited and random. The Shia population will therefore be systematically disenfranchised and as US envoy Morgan Ortagus depicts them, labelled as Iranian and depicted as non-Lebanese. 

Especially when the Shia account for such a huge percentage of the overall Lebanese population, this would be cutting a limb off of the Lebanese State and isolating millions, including members of the government, essential workers, a segment of the Lebanese Army and beyond.

Four, on the question of securing Lebanon’s rights, again, we come back to the strategy behind the disarmament of Hezbollah. The Lebanese State’s number one bargaining chip with the United States, its Western allies and Israel, is the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons.

Giving up Hezbollah’s weapons means putting the State immediately at the disposal of Israel, taking away all the bargaining chips it has when it comes to securing any kind of deals. This extends to everything from reconstruction to economic investments and even its own resources in the Mediterranean; everything would come down to foreign decisions, and the Lebanese government would have no say over anything. In other words, they would be slaves.

As a prime example of this, take the Egyptians. Their economy is on the floor, their people are plunged further and further into poverty, despite having actually secured a comprehensive deal with the United States and Israel in 1979. The difference when it comes to Lebanon is that unlike Egypt, it doesn’t have a capable army and did not inflict any blow on the Israelis that would make them consider compromise. If you think Egypt is currently suffering, Lebanon will be ten times worse.

Look at the issue as if you are a businessman or even a seller negotiating a price at a market. You don’t sign away property or hand out your product to a known thief who you have just witnessed rob your neighbour, without at least securing compensation. Doing so would be the most naive move possible. At the very least, you try to win something; you don’t depend upon the thief’s friend who tells you they will shout at them if they don’t hand over the agreed compensation a week later.

The Ball is in Tehran’s Court: Israel’s Greatest Threat to Iran is through Infiltration

Now, to address the sectarian perspective. This is a totally irrational argument rooted in blind hatred. The sectarian types will use any justification for their position, no matter how ridiculous or irrelevant that point is. You want an example of what this achieves, don’t bother looking back to the Lebanese civil war, just take a peek over the border into Syria, that is precisely what sectarianism achieves.

The sectarian arguments are no more serious than a White Supremacist in the United States arguing that Black people have to be punished or subjected to whatever policy. It’s the same tired arguments. In Europe, a White Supremacist argues that Muslim Migrants “believe in eliminating us because of their religion”, which a Sunni sectarian in Lebanon would also argue. In fact, the racist in the UK will harp on about how Muslims practice “Taqqiya”, which the Sunni sectarian types also claim of the Shia to explain away any counter arguments they will make in their defense.

All of this is nonsensical hatred that doesn’t differ too much from the clearly identifiable racism and sectarianism we see across the entire planet. “This group is violent”, “my friend saw them doing this”, “look how weird that practice is”, “they are people who sell drugs” etc etc etc.

The way that Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and his government are going about this policy of disarming Hezbollah is not in Lebanon’s national interest. There is simply no argument that can make sense of it at all, from any perspective, because ultimately, this Lebanese government’s decision is being commanded by the US, under the threat of war and economic damage, not as a move taken by an independent government that seeks to better their nation.

If the Lebanese authorities insist on pursuing the agenda that the US has ordered, it is tantamount to a declaration of war.

(The Palestine Chronicle)