Watan-The Lebanese presidency has placed the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons at the top of its agenda, fulfilling the commitments made by President Joseph Aoun in his inauguration speech and by the government led by Nawaf Salam.
The approach remains centered on dialogue to avoid any internal security scenario, despite mounting pressure from certain political factions urging a swift resolution—even through force if necessary. Some parties opposing Hezbollah, especially the Lebanese Forces led by Samir Geagea, have rejected dialogue and the defense strategy, citing the failure of previous similar attempts.
They insist that the only legitimate reference should be the ceasefire agreements and binding international resolutions such as UNSC Resolutions 1701 and 1559. They believe “the opportunity is ripe” to disarm Hezbollah, given the shifting power dynamics both domestically and internationally, the heavy losses Hezbollah suffered during the Israeli war, and its waning influence over Lebanese decision-making, along with external pressure on the issue.
Hezbollah Signals Flexibility, Lebanon Weighs Disarmament Path
On the other hand, Hezbollah has declared its “readiness” for dialogue but set firm preconditions, foremost among them the priority of confronting Israeli aggression and liberating occupied Lebanese territory. The party stressed that “the Lebanese government is required to fulfill its commitments stated in the ministerial declaration, including taking all measures necessary to liberate Lebanese land and to inform the public of the steps being taken.”
In the coming days, all eyes will be on how the Lebanese state handles the issue, especially as it is expected to be brought before the government soon, amid differing opinions on how and when to address the matter. President Aoun has intensified consultations on the topic and announced Thursday that Hezbollah had shown significant flexibility and openness regarding cooperation on a timeline for disarmament—raising questions over whether Aoun’s promises will succeed, or whether Lebanon is heading toward another round of dialogue sessions with no practical outcomes, similar to those that began in 2006 and were never translated into government policy. On the contrary, successive governments have continued to include the “army, people, and resistance” formula in their policy statements, while Hezbollah’s military strength has multiplied several times since 2006.
Lebanon’s Past Experiences with Dialogue on Hezbollah’s Weapons
Lebanon has held multiple rounds of national dialogue over the years to discuss Hezbollah’s weapons and a national defense strategy. The first took place in 2006 under Speaker Nabih Berri’s sponsorship, followed by sessions in 2008 and 2009, including some held in Doha, culminating in the “Baabda Declaration” on June 11, 2012, during President Michel Sleiman’s term. Hezbollah initially approved it but later withdrew its support, particularly as it was heavily involved in regional conflicts at the time—especially in Syria. The National Dialogue Committee then issued a statement emphasizing commitments such as strengthening stability, protecting civil peace, avoiding violence and sectarian strife, upholding the Taif Accord, keeping Lebanon out of regional and international conflicts, and adhering to international resolutions including Resolution 1701.
A Hezbollah parliamentary source told The New Arab that “Hezbollah’s weapons have always been essential for resisting Israeli occupation, especially since the state failed to fulfill that role. Previous dialogue sessions failed due to internal efforts by the March 14 coalition to eliminate Hezbollah and implement foreign agendas, and to incite civil strife—something we would never allow.” He added: “We always support dialogue and have expressed openness to it, with fundamental conditions—namely Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanon and an end to its attacks.”
Former MP Mustafa Allouch, who witnessed the earlier dialogue sessions, told The New Arab that “the first session was held under Speaker Nabih Berri in 2006. An agreement was reached then to remove Palestinian weapons from outside the camps, discuss a national defense strategy, and create the international tribunal for the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. But then the July 2006 war broke out, halting discussions. Dialogue resumed in 2008 and 2009, but despite the formation of committees, they either weren’t convened or were marred by internal disagreements.”
He continued: “The issue of Hezbollah’s weapons resurfaced during Michel Sleiman’s presidency under the Baabda Declaration, which didn’t call for disarmament but for neutrality in regional conflicts. Naturally, Hezbollah declared the declaration null and void and refused to abide by it. The weapons issue was never debated in Parliament, remaining taboo. Even regarding the implementation of international resolutions or Lebanon’s constitution, Resolution 1701 was never discussed or enforced in Parliament, nor was the issue of Hezbollah’s military power.”
Allouch noted that “official and parliamentary Lebanon has never dared address the issue. Not even full implementation of the Taif Accord or the constitution has been pursued. What’s forcing Hezbollah to consider the topic now is the reality on the ground—its weapons have been largely destroyed, the infrastructure severely damaged, and Iran’s current position is weaker. Iran may now be unwilling to support its allies due to sanctions and U.S. threats.”
He did not rule out that Hezbollah might eventually surrender its weapons but suggested it would seek political rewards in return—to frame the losses and sacrifices as having yielded gains for the Shiite community, possibly including protections against prosecution in various legal cases.
“Serious Steps” Toward Hezbollah’s Disarmament
Retired Brigadier General and international law professor Riad Shayaa told The New Arab that “the recent Israeli war resulted in a full military defeat for Hezbollah, forcing it to accept a ceasefire on November 26—indeed, it was Hezbollah that requested it. The agreement includes disarmament starting in southern Lebanon and banning not only possession of weapons but also their import and smuggling.”
He added: “Lebanon today faces pressure to tie disarmament to international aid—not just for rebuilding but for internal political, economic, and security reform. Israel continues its attacks and occupation as long as Hezbollah remains a military power.”
Shayaa said Lebanon is “taking serious steps” in this regard, as affirmed by President Aoun in his inaugural speech and by Salam in the government’s policy statement. He noted that “the Lebanese army is playing a major role in implementing the agreement alongside UNIFIL in the south, having carried out hundreds of operations to inspect old Hezbollah sites, weapons caches, and seized arms.”
He recalled that “multiple past attempts were made to form a national defense strategy, especially after the 2006 war and Resolution 1701. Dialogue began under Speaker Berri, then moved to Baabda Palace under Sleiman, where the 2012 Baabda Declaration was issued. There was a moment of consensus, including Hezbollah, on crafting a strategy that would shift war and peace decisions to the state and entail disarmament. But Hezbollah later rejected it, halting all efforts—largely due to its key regional role, from Syria and Iraq to Tehran, and its global operations serving Iran’s foreign agenda.”
Shayaa concluded that “Hezbollah’s current stalling is tied to Iran’s situation. Tehran is facing Israeli threats and preparing for negotiations with the U.S. in Oman, amid a clear American strategy to eliminate Iran’s foreign influence. Iran is holding on to its last bargaining chips—and Hezbollah’s weapons are one of them. But in my opinion, Iran will ultimately yield, and Hezbollah will surrender its weapons to the state.”
-
-
-
-
-
-
