Hezbollah has condemned the Lebanese government’s decision to begin disarming the Iran-backed group, calling the move a “grave sin” and accusing Beirut of acting under American pressure to serve Israeli interests. “We will treat this decision as if it does not exist,” the group said in a statement yesterday, rejecting the legitimacy of the plan and warning that it weakens Lebanon at a time of continued Israeli aggression.
The controversial decision follows mounting international calls for Lebanon to assert full control over arms within its territory. In a significant step, the Lebanese cabinet on August 5 instructed the national army to prepare a plan that would place all weapons under state control by the end of the year. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said the plan must be ready for cabinet discussion and approval by the end of August.
The latest move by the Lebanese government is clearly a direct fallout of what happened in October 2023 when Hamas launched a brutal attack against Israel, killing more than 1,500 Israelis. The response from Israel was devastating, flattening much of Gaza. Hezbollah stepped into the conflict last year, opening a northern front against Israel, in an act of solidarity with Hamas. But it turned out to be a dangerous move. Israel responded with a military and intelligence campaign that caught Hezbollah by surprise. More than 5,000 Hezbollah fighters and senior commanders were killed. And the biggest blow came when Israel bombed Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah to death. While the US finally managed to broker a truce, Israel continues to sporadically target Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon.
As part of the truce agreement, Lebanon committed to limiting arms possession to six state security forces, seizing unauthorised weapons and preventing rearmament by non-state actors. Since then, Hezbollah has come under sustained diplomatic pressure, particularly from Washington, to begin disarmament.
In June, US envoy Thomas Barrack presented Lebanese officials with a roadmap that linked Hezbollah’s disarmament to an Israeli halt in airstrikes and a withdrawal from five disputed positions in southern Lebanon. The proposal gained further momentum after Hezbollah’s main supply route was cut off following the December ousting of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Israel’s June strike on Iran, the group’s chief sponsor.
Prime Minister Salam’s efforts to move the disarmament process into the formal domain of the cabinet were seen as a challenge to President Joseph Aoun, who had earlier claimed that discussions with Hezbollah over its weapons would be led by the presidency. With little progress under Aoun’s initiative, the international community grew increasingly impatient. French President Emmanuel Macron reportedly expressed his frustration in a July meeting with Salam, while American officials stepped up public pressure, with Barrack warning on social media that “words will not suffice” if Hezbollah retains its arms.
General Michael Kurilla, head of US Central Command, also visited Beirut last month and discussed the issue with President Aoun. The president later backed cabinet involvement in the matter, and during a speech marking the 80th anniversary of the Lebanese army, he urged Hezbollah to work with the Lebanese state.
However, Hezbollah and its Shia ally, the Amal Movement led by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, insist that disarmament can only be considered after Israel withdraws from Lebanese territory and halts its military operations. In a statement, Hezbollah reiterated its openness to dialogue, but said such talks must take place within a broader framework of a national security strategy and not under conditions of what it called “aggression”.
The group argues that the government's plan, shaped by “American diktats”, fails to address the continuing Israeli threat and leaves Lebanon vulnerable. Speaking during the cabinet meeting on August 5, Hezbollah’s deputy leader Naim Qassem stated that “any timetable presented under Israeli aggression cannot be agreed to”, stressing that disarmament discussions must wait until Israel ceases its violations.
Hezbollah also renewed its call for the liberation of Lebanese territory still under Israeli control and the return of Lebanese detainees. Although it was pummelled by Israel, Hezbollah remains a powerful political force in Lebanon, especially among the Shia community. The group runs a vast chain of social services and holds significant political power through its parliamentary alliance with Amal.
Lebanon’s post-civil war political system, which allocates state positions according to religious sects, grants substantial weight to Shia representatives. During the August 5 cabinet meeting, two Shia ministers were absent due to travel, while the other two reportedly walked out just before the disarmament decision was taken. Qassem has since suggested that decisions made without Shia consensus lack legitimacy and may be challenged.
This raises concerns that the move could provoke a political crisis or even instability in a country still haunted by the memory of the 1975–1990 civil war. Since the war’s end, Hezbollah has remained the only militia allowed to retain its weapons, originally justified as necessary to resist Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Although Israel withdrew in 2000, Hezbollah refused to give up its arsenal.
A similar demand for disarmament was included in the UN-brokered ceasefire that ended the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, but the group again refused to comply, pointing to Israeli violations of the deal.
Among the wider Lebanese public, Hezbollah no longer retains much influence. According to an Arab Barometer poll, support for the group has waned among the Lebanese population, and is now down to less than 20 per cent. Yet its grip on the Shia community remains firm, and therefore, Hezbollah will continue to be an influential player in Lebanese politics for the foreseeable future.