Lebanon stands at a historic crossroads as a proliferation of arms among political, sectarian, and terror factions threatens both state authority and regional stability. Despite international pressure and the appointment of former military commander Joseph Aoun as president, efforts to restore a state monopoly over weapons have faltered, with Iran-backed Hezbollah openly refusing to surrender its vast arsenal. Intensifying internal divisions and a government unable to assert effective authority have heightened concerns—not only for Lebanon’s future, but also for Israel and other neighboring states.
Sectarian and Historical Roots of Lebanon’s Armed Landscape
The normalization of armed non-state actors is deeply embedded in Lebanon’s modern history. The civil war in the 1970s institutionalized the principle that control over territory and community depends on armed force rather than government legitimacy. Starting with Palestinian militias headquartered in refugee camps, and later transferring to native sectarian armies, Lebanon’s body politic fragmented under the weight of local warlords, religious militias, and foreign proxies. Over several decades, Hezbollah—with its explicit backing from Iran—emerged as Lebanon’s leading military and political force, far surpassing the state’s armed forces in strength and operational autonomy.
The Ubiquity of Weapons and the Culture of Militarization
Weapons have all but replaced civic institutions as sources of security and power in Lebanon. In contrast to Western societies where civilian disarmament underpins public security, Lebanese society assumes the right and necessity of private and communal armament. Clan-based stockpiles, politically aligned militias, professional mafias, and popular self-defense forces all coexist in a state of uneasy détente. The recent presidential transition, placing an army leader in office, was intended to signal renewed governance, but instead exposed the depth of political, social, and military paralysis.
Impasse Over Disarmament and Sharp Sectarian Divides
President Aoun’s declaration that control over arms must revert solely to the state remains aspirational rather than actionable. While some Sunni and Christian groups suggest a willingness to consider eventual disarmament, such offers are contingent and theoretical as long as Hezbollah resists any move to relinquish its strength. The Druze maintain neutrality, avoiding direct escalation but safeguarding their capacity for self-defense. The fundamental obstacle is Hezbollah’s refusal—strengthened by Iranian material support and regional ambitions—to entertain any scenario involving surrender of its weaponry. Instead, Hezbollah has pursued a sophisticated entrenchment strategy, embedding its operatives in state institutions while maintaining parallel armed capabilities.
Worsening Domestic Tensions and the Imminence of Conflict
Political antagonism and sectarian discord have reached unprecedented levels since the October 7th massacre by Hamas in Israel. Rhetoric has shifted from dialogue to incitement, and sporadic clashes on the ground threaten to escalate into full-scale hostilities. The Lebanese political system, once capable of brokering fragile power-sharing agreements, is now paralyzed by a poisonous climate of distrust and threats of revenge. Analysts widely agree that efforts to forcibly disarm Hezbollah—or even to curb its autonomy—would likely trigger renewed civil violence.
Regional and International Repercussions
Hezbollah’s stance reverberates far beyond Lebanese borders. For Israel, the continued presence of an Iranian-controlled terror army to the north constitutes an unacceptable strategic risk—especially in the wake of the October 7th, 2023 massacre, the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust. Israel’s defense doctrine, rooted in deterrence and preemption, has resulted in persistent air operations targeting Hezbollah infrastructure across Lebanon. Although these actions are publicly denied as cooperative by either government, their net effect is to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities and indirectly advance any future prospect of state re-establishment in Lebanon.
The United States and European powers continue to advocate for the full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, demanding a disarmed south Lebanon and full state sovereignty. In practice, neither the Lebanese government nor its allies have marshaled the means or political consensus to pursue disarmament, leading to a widening gulf between diplomatic aspirations and on-the-ground realities.
Iranian Influence and the Broader “Axis of Resistance”
Hezbollah’s fortification within Lebanon is a core component of Iran’s regional strategy to challenge Israel, secure influence over Arab capitals, and threaten Western interests across the Middle East. The organization’s integration of political activities with covert and overt military operations typifies the “axis of resistance” model, allowing Iran to project force via proxies without direct confrontation. This dynamic has left ordinary Lebanese citizens in a precarious position, subject to both economic collapse and daily security threats as local governance breaks down.
The Outlook: Entrenchment and International Vigilance
Absent a radical shift in either domestic politics or regional power balances, Lebanon’s future appears mired in instability. The prevailing consensus among local and international experts is that disarming Hezbollah is unachievable without confrontation—a risk all stakeholders have so far been unwilling to take. Meanwhile, the Israeli military will likely continue targeting Hezbollah capabilities, out of both necessity and moral responsibility to prevent another October 7th.
In the midst of this crisis, the reality for most Lebanese is one of rising insecurity, eroding civil order, and diminishing prospects for economic recovery. Armed groups remain the de facto arbiters of power, and the promise of state authority ring hollow in the shadow of Hezbollah’s weapons. As history shows, the longer the gun remains the guarantor of security, the harder the road to genuine peace—both for Lebanon itself and for the broader region.
