Lebanon is testing its fragile stability with a government-backed army plan to disarm Hezbollah, the country’s most powerful militia operating outside state control. Supporters call it a long-overdue step toward asserting state sovereignty. Opponents warn it risks plunging the country into confrontation with Hezbollah, and possibly with Israel.
The debate crystallized in September, when the government formally adopted the plan, widening already deep divisions. The key issue is whether the army can enforce it without tipping Lebanon into armed conflict.
President Joseph Aoun has insisted that only the state should hold weapons. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam echoed that stance, vowing there would be “no retreat from the decisions,” while conceding the army needs more support to shoulder its growing responsibilities.
But even with political backing, the army faces a harsher reality: years of underfunding have left it short on logistics, equipment, and transport, with no sufficient operational budget to sustain wide deployments. “It’s in a precarious position,” one analyst said, expected to demonstrate resolve while avoiding the slide into civil strife.
That gap has drawn in foreign sponsors. The United States and its Western, Arab, and Gulf allies have pledged support. The Pentagon recently approved a $14.2 million package for patrols, demining, and dismantling Hezbollah arms caches. But Salam stressed that Lebanon needs far greater U.S. support in both funding and advanced hardware. Retired Brig. Gen. Naji Malaeb told Alhurra that the army can confront weapons sites beyond state control but requires specialized gear: “Success requires advanced engineering equipment capable of dealing with fortified depots, armored vehicles, drones, and encrypted communications,” he said.
The plan itself unfolds in five stages. The first, already underway, covers the area south of the Litani River and is scheduled to last three months, ending in November 2025. It focuses on eliminating weapons stockpiles and armed presence, with parallel security measures to block transfers elsewhere. The four subsequent stages target the Bekaa Valley, Beirut and its suburbs, and finally the rest of the country. No timetable was attached to those later phases, which remain classified.
Even the first steps have proven deadly. In August 2025, several Lebanese soldiers were killed and others injured while attempting to dismantle a Hezbollah arms depot in the south. The incident underscored both the risks of the mission and the army’s chronic shortages in equipment and rapid deployment capacity.
Yet no amount of outside pressure has changed Hezbollah’s stance. The group has flatly refused to give up its weapons, calling them essential to deterring Israel. It has demanded an Israeli withdrawal, an end to targeted killings of its leaders, the release of Lebanese detainees, and reconstruction of war-damaged areas before any discussion of disarmament. For Hezbollah, its arsenal is tied to its political survival. Its ministers, along with those from the Amal Movement, walked out of the September 2025 cabinet session that approved the plan. Iran, its chief sponsor, has also voiced opposition and predicted the effort will fail.
Those dangers fuel deep uncertainty. Analysts say Hezbollah has the means to obstruct or slow the plan, using its military strength, political influence, and entrenched social networks. Some envision a best-case outcome in which the army, backed by U.S. and Gulf support, can enforce the plan and finally bring all weapons under state control. Others warn of a darker path, where security unravels, armed clashes erupt, and even divisions emerge within the army itself. A third possibility, no less perilous, is that Israel loses patience and intervenes directly, launching a large-scale operation to force Hezbollah’s disarmament and pressure Beirut into compliance.
Lebanese politicians are equally divided. MP Ghada Ayoub dismissed warnings of civil war, stressing that the disarmament decision was made by Lebanon’s constitutional institutions. “This is the sovereign implementation of the Taif Agreement, not sectarian fighting,” she said. Elias Zoghbi, a Beirut-based commentator, predicted the plan would move forward quietly unless Iran intervenes to derail it, a move he warned could give Israel a pretext for intervention.
Meanwhile, the army has already dismantled some Hezbollah facilities south of the Litani. “There is tangible progress, but much remains to be done,” said Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. But U.S. envoy Tom Barrack cautioned that Lebanon’s efforts remain largely “words without action,” noting that Hezbollah is rebuilding its strength and currently receives up to $60 million a month.
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, brushed aside U.S. criticism. “The Lebanese army will not be Israel’s border guard, and its weapons are not meant to stir strife,” he said.
The debate isn’t confined to Lebanon. For Washington, disarmament is seen as a gateway to extending the cease-fire with Israel and pressing for its withdrawal from southern Lebanon. For many Lebanese, it represents a chance to restore state sovereignty. But failure could have wider costs: Zoghbi warned that stalled progress could freeze Arab and international aid and cancel three donor conferences France, the U.S., and Arab states had promised to support Lebanon’s reconstruction.
Domestic backing for disarmament is also widening. Once-sympathetic groups like the Free Patriotic Movement now argue Hezbollah’s arsenal has “outlived its purpose.” The Lebanese Forces, Kataeb, and other rivals have taken the same stance. “The majority of Lebanese support the government’s effort,” Ayoub said, describing the army as the “clearest expression of national unity.” Yet Hezbollah still dominates its strongholds. Makram Rabah, a Lebanese political analyst, predicted stalemate rather than war. “It will remain a political clash. Attempts to drag the army into direct confrontation will fail,” he said.
For Lebanon, the choice is stark: assert state authority and risk confrontation, or step back and risk leaving sovereignty, and the country’s recovery, hostage to Hezbollah’s arsenal. With aid and reconstruction on hold, the outcome will shape not just Lebanon’s politics, but the lives of millions caught in the middle.
Asrar Chbaro
