At a decisive moment for Lebanon, a core dilemma remains unresolved: what to do about Hezbollah’s powerful and illicit arsenal. This question weighs heavily not only on Lebanon’s security but also its ability to maintain regional stability, attract international support, and break through the economic paralysis afflicting the country. The issue has gained acute urgency amid growing international pressure and domestic hardship, with Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun continuing to pursue a delicate path of dialogue rather than rapid confrontation. The outcome, observers note, is likely to reverberate far beyond Lebanon’s borders, directly influencing Israel’s security calculations and the broader Western strategy against Iranian-backed terrorism.
Hezbollah, recognized by the United States, Israel, and the European Union as a terrorist organization, wields military power in Lebanon surpassing that of the official Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). Rooted in Iran’s regional ambitions, Hezbollah’s evolution since its establishment in 1982 has entangled Lebanese sovereignty with a foreign agenda, centered on armed confrontation with Israel and the expansion of Iranian influence throughout the Middle East. According to U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessments, Hezbollah now holds tens of thousands of rockets and advanced missiles—much of it supplied by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This substantial arsenal enables the group to operate autonomously within Lebanon, undermining the central government and destabilizing the wider region.
President Aoun faces significant constraints. Publicly, he has refrained from endorsing any immediate disarmament action against Hezbollah, citing deep concerns that a direct challenge could trigger internal violence and shatter Lebanon’s already fragile order. The Lebanese presidency’s current preference for quiet dialogue, rather than decisive steps, acknowledges fears that a miscalculation could unleash an internal crisis with catastrophic consequences. Observers, including international diplomats and humanitarian organizations, widely agree that Lebanon cannot delay resolving the weapons impasse indefinitely, as protracted indecision fuels instability and impedes urgently needed economic recovery efforts.
A central dimension of this crisis is the linkage between security and reconstruction. International donors, including major Western governments and Gulf states, have formally conditioned future financial assistance and reconstruction support on the consolidation of all armed power under the Lebanese state’s authority. As repeatedly emphasized by envoys from the European Union and statements made by the U.S. State Department, international partners require full confidence that only the LAF will possess weapons before unlocking billions of dollars in aid. This stipulation reflects a consensus that state sovereignty—and the monopoly of legitimate force—are indispensable for Lebanon’s recovery and for sustained regional peace. Without disarmament, Lebanon’s access to humanitarian and reconstruction funds remains frozen, deepening poverty and unrest as public infrastructure collapses and essential services deteriorate.
The roots of Hezbollah’s military capacity and political leverage are deeply embedded in Lebanon’s confessional political system, which has long prevented the consolidation of national unity and left state institutions vulnerable to the emergence of parallel power centers. The civil war of 1975–1990 set the stage for non-state militias to thrive, and Iran exploited this fragmentation to create a powerful proxy force that could serve Tehran’s aims. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701—the legal basis for the 2006 ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah—explicitly mandates the disarmament of all non-state actors inside Lebanon. Despite this, international and UN peacekeeping missions report that Hezbollah maintains extensive weapons caches and military sites embedded within civilian areas—tactics that violate the laws of armed conflict and jeopardize noncombatants.
From Israel’s vantage point, Hezbollah remains the most significant immediate threat along its northern border. Since the Hamas-led October 7th, 2023 massacre—the gravest anti-Jewish atrocity since the Holocaust—Israelis have been acutely aware of Iran’s strategy to encircle the Jewish state via a network of heavily armed proxies. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), under the command of Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, repeatedly warn that Hezbollah’s trajectory poses an existential danger, as the group’s acquisition of precision-guided munitions could overwhelm missile defenses and reach major Israeli cities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have spoken publicly about Israel’s obligation to act preemptively and defensively to avert mass civilian suffering in the face of explicit threats by Hezbollah’s leadership, particularly Hassan Nasrallah, toward Israeli population centers.
Yet, the stalemate persists. Lebanese citizens bear the daily consequences of political deadlock and Hezbollah’s military entrenchment. The country’s financial crisis—the worst in its history—has wiped out personal savings, crippled the banking sector, and left state salaries unpaid. The blockage in international reconstruction aid, due principally to unresolved security concerns, has compounded a humanitarian emergency. Emigration among Lebanon’s youth is accelerating, and across confessional lines, demands for an end to militia rule and the restoration of accountable government have become louder, even as dissenters face intimidation by Hezbollah’s networks.
Geopolitically, Lebanon’s fate is entangled with the broader confrontation between Iran and the Western-led order. The pattern is familiar: Iranian-backed militias—from Hamas in Gaza, to the Houthis in Yemen, to paramilitary groups in Syria and Iraq—seek regional destabilization and the erosion of national sovereignty in service of Tehran’s revolutionary vision. Even as Lebanese authorities assert the need for dialogue, Israeli and Western officials continue to present documentary evidence of illicit cross-border arms flows: Iranian rockets and drone technology are smuggled via Syria to Lebanon, sometimes disguised as humanitarian shipments. U.S., Israeli, and European officials cite multiple intelligence findings demonstrating a persistent Iranian effort to strengthen Hezbollah’s capabilities in defiance of international embargoes and multilateral agreements.
The legal and moral asymmetry at the heart of this confrontation remains clear: Israel, recognized as a sovereign, democratic state, responds to threats within the framework of international law, with a focus on self-defense and the protection of civilian lives. In stark contrast, Hezbollah operates outside both Lebanese and international legal systems, pursuing Iran’s objectives through the threat and use of terror. Western governments, including the United States, have reiterated that there is no equivalence between the IDF’s lawful operations—always undertaken as a last resort to maintain the integrity and security of its population—and the asymmetric warfare conducted by a non-state militia devoted to the violent destruction of a neighboring country.
The stakes are high on all sides. For Lebanon, failure to resolve the weapons crisis risks not only indefinite economic stagnation and international isolation but also the possible eruption of armed conflict, fueled by external interests. For Israel, unchecked Hezbollah power raises the specter of renewed war, potentially at even greater scale and lethality than in 2006. For the West, the Lebanese case is both a test of policy coherence in the region and a direct reflection of the ongoing contest to contain and roll back Iran’s regional ambitions.
As international mediators press for progress, the pace of dialogue in Beirut remains cautious. President Aoun’s supporters maintain that a gradual approach is warranted, given the explosive potential of internal strife. Detractors warn that time only benefits Hezbollah, further weakening Lebanese sovereignty and negotiating leverage. The window for peaceful, negotiated solutions could be closing as external actors—chiefly Iran—exploit every division for strategic gain.
The original dilemma persists: can Lebanese leadership muster the unity and courage required to reassert state authority, or will hesitation cede the initiative to those intent on preserving military power outside state control? Absent a decisive move, international support will remain on hold, and Lebanon’s long-awaited recovery will remain elusive.
This critical juncture demands clear-eyed recognition of political and security realities. As Western governments and allied regional actors have made clear, the restoration of Lebanon as a functioning, sovereign state requires that only its national army possess weapons. Hezbollah’s arsenal—supplied, funded, and politically directed by Iran—remains the principal obstacle to this outcome. Only through the full realization of this principle can Lebanon hope to reclaim stability, reintegrate with the community of nations, and restore hope for its citizens. As the consequences of further delay mount, the world will watch closely for Lebanon’s next decision—and its reverberations across the region.
