BEIRUT – Lebanon remains at a crossroads as President Michel Aoun, a former commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces, faces mounting domestic and international pressure to challenge the armed presence of Hezbollah, Iran’s most significant regional proxy. Despite repeated calls from both within the country and abroad to assert state sovereignty and begin the process of disarmament, the president has expressed persistent reluctance, citing the dangerous instability that such a move could unleash within Lebanon’s diverse and volatile society.
Most recently, all overtures to the presidency to move against Hezbollah have been met with the response that “this is not the right time.” This stance reflects the deep concern that an attempt to disarm Hezbollah by force could lead to direct confrontation, not only between the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Hezbollah’s formidable fighters, but also among a host of other armed groups and factions entrenched across Lebanon.
Hezbollah, designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, and several other countries, operates as a state within a state, maintaining an extensive arsenal of precision-guided missiles, rockets, drones, and light and heavy weaponry. Intelligence assessments estimate its military strength as superior to that of the official Lebanese military. Its continued operation as an independent armed actor has effectively sidelined state sovereignty and, for decades, complicated Lebanon’s relationships both internally and with Western and regional powers.
President Aoun’s reluctance is grounded in acute awareness of these realities. Lebanese and foreign analysts warn that any open conflict with Hezbollah could trigger a rapid escalation, leading the group to redirect its weapons inward and ignite civil fighting. The potential consequences—communal violence, sectarian bloodshed, and a repeat of the devastating 15-year civil war that ended in 1990—haunt policymakers in Beirut.
Political Deadlock and Sectarian Fragmentation
Lebanon’s political paralysis is exacerbated by the proliferation of armed factions outside of Hezbollah. Over two decades, dozens of militias—aligned along religious, sectarian, or familial lines—have taken root, each pursuing its own interests and maintaining sizable private arsenals. Some are remnants of militias from previous civil conflict; others emerged during times of political vacuum or crisis. The lack of a unified command, coupled with mutual suspicion and longstanding grievances, ensures that tensions are never far from the surface.
Since the outbreak of the Iron Swords War in October 2023, triggered by the unprecedented Hamas massacre in southern Israel, anxieties have grown among Lebanon’s various communities. The brutal attack, the deadliest antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust, has intensified hostilities throughout the region. In Lebanon, many now regard the situation as a powder keg; local observers report that decades-old resentments have escalated, with different factions awaiting what some describe as the inevitable spark that could plunge the country back into violence.
Hezbollah’s Relationship with Iran and Regional Risks
Hezbollah’s loyalty remains firmly with Iran, and its actions are closely coordinated with Tehran’s broader campaign against Israel and Western interests in the Middle East. The group’s arsenal and funding are directly linked to Iranian support. Since October 7, Hezbollah has sporadically launched attacks across the Israel-Lebanon border, further heightening the prospect of a wider conflict.
Israeli officials have repeatedly warned that Lebanon will be held responsible for any escalation emanating from its territory. Western efforts, including repeated UN Security Council resolutions, have called for all militias in Lebanon to disarm; however, enforcement has proven impossible without genuine consensus and the power to act decisively.
The Dilemma of Disarmament
President Aoun’s position, though criticized by some, reflects Lebanon’s historic dilemma. Attempts to challenge Hezbollah’s military position would not only risk fracturing the Lebanese Armed Forces—where sectarian loyalties persist—but could see hundreds of thousands of civilian lives endangered should fighting break out within Lebanese cities and villages.
Local sources stress that Lebanon’s underlying problem is the absence of a truly unified national identity, with allegiance to sect or external patron often outweighing loyalty to the state. Decades of foreign intervention—including Iranian, Syrian, and previously Israeli involvement—have only deepened these divisions. As a result, the government faces formidable obstacles to asserting its authority, even as it confronts severe economic collapse, widespread corruption, and the aftermath of the Beirut port explosion in 2020.
Future Prospects
As the war imposed by Iran and its terror proxies against Israel continues to simmer, Lebanon’s crisis of sovereignty shows no sign of resolution. The president’s reticence to confront Hezbollah may temporarily forestall conflict, but does nothing to address the root issue: a powerful terror organization operating with impunity, backed by a foreign regime hostile to Lebanon’s independence and stability. Western and regional actors stress that without a genuine national consensus, and a transformation of the internal balance of power, Lebanon will remain vulnerable to further chaos and outside manipulation.
In the meantime, ordinary Lebanese—already battered by inflation, economic ruin, and the collapse of state services—face the daily uncertainty of living in a country where heavily armed factions, fueled by long-standing animosities, stand ready for confrontation. The Lebanese people, much like their leadership, wait uneasily for what may come, hoping to avoid yet another descent into a war that would devastate the nation anew.
