Lebanon: between the disarmament of Hezbollah and the risk of a new civil war

Lebanon is facing a critical crossroads with regard to the disarmament of Hezbollah, an issue that has divided the political class and threatens to fracture the already fragile social cohesion, generating strong tensions with the international community.

This external pressure, especially from the United States, is increasing on Beirut to adopt decisive measures that limit the military power of the Iranian-backed Shiite militia. However, any attempt at disarmament in the current context could have devastating consequences in a country experiencing the worst economic crisis in its recent history. 

Lebanon's options are few and complex: opting for direct confrontation that could destroy the social fabric or insisting on dialogue that, so far, has not yielded concrete results. In this sense, President Joseph Aoun, in recent statements to a delegation from the US Task Force for Lebanon, emphasised the importance of dialogue as a way to resolve the problem of non-state weaponry. ‘Problems are solved through communication. Hezbollah is still a Lebanese component,’ he said, trying to balance international pressure with the reality facing the country.  

These statements reflect both the weight of external demands and the limited tools available to the Lebanese state to deal with this deep crisis, as Hezbollah is not only an armed force with a large arsenal, but also a highly influential political actor with significant support within the Shiite community, which perceives it as the only force that can stand up to Israel. 

However, the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah, which resulted in the elimination of several senior members of the organisation, including its leader Hassan Nasrallah, has called into question the capabilities of the Tehran-backed group. 

A military option against Hezbollah, although it has been proposed by some sectors, would be disastrous. Hezbollah is not just a militia, it is one of the most powerful armed forces in the country. An open conflict with the group could plunge Lebanon back into a civil war similar to the one it experienced between 1975 and 1990, when the country was divided between sectarian factions, and regional and international actors played decisive roles in the conflict. 

In fact, several analysts emphasise that current conditions are reminiscent of the period prior to the civil war: proliferation of arms, political polarisation and a growing influence of foreign powers.

In this context, the Lebanese army finds itself in a compromising position. Despite the support of the international community, any attempt to disarm Hezbollah by force could divide the population even further and aggravate the institutional crisis. Walid Phares, researcher and former advisor to the US Congress, warned that a military escalation ‘could lead to a devastating civil war that would only benefit the enemies of Lebanon’. 

Faced with this scenario, dialogue continues to appear as the only acceptable route, although one full of obstacles. Hezbollah has made it clear that it will not agree to hand over its weapons except as part of a national strategic plan that guarantees the defence of the country. And while the international community insists on the elimination of illegal weapons, internal divisions make any progress even more difficult. 

Adel Abdullah, professor of political science at the Arab University of Beirut, explains to Al-Arab that ‘dialogue may be the only option to avoid an escalation, but without real guarantees, as Hezbollah is unlikely to accept the terms of disarmament’. 

Some voices in Parliament, such as MP Ghassan Hasbani of the Strong Republic bloc, insist that the army should take on the task of disarming Hezbollah, even by force if necessary. However, they warn that outsourcing this work to foreign actors — such as Israel or Syria — would be unacceptable to any Lebanese for reasons of national sovereignty. 

Despite everything, the government has yet to present a clear plan or a specific timetable for fulfilling its promise of disarmament. The lack of consensus within the cabinet reflects the deep divisions that exist. As far back as 2006, a national dialogue attempted to address the issue, without success. The debate was suspended after the outbreak of the July war that same year, and since then, the question of disarmament remains unresolved. 

While the Lebanese authorities, together with the international community, try to resolve the problem of Hezbollah's arms, the country remains mired in deep political instability and a prolonged economic crisis that has been dragging on for years.