Lebanon stands at a defining crossroads – one that will shape its sovereignty, stability, and very survival as a nation. The decision before the country is stark: reclaim the monopoly on legitimate force or resign itself to a slow, irreversible erosion of the state. At the center of this crisis lies Hezbollah’s arsenal – a parallel military structure that operates beyond government control, answers to an external command hierarchy, and holds enough influence to veto national decisions at will.

For decades, Hezbollah has justified its weapons under the banner of “resistance,” first framed as a necessary shield against Israeli aggression. In the 1980s and 1990s, this narrative resonated with many Lebanese, particularly as the group played a role in ending Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000. Yet that justification has long expired. What began as a defensive posture has morphed into a political and military apparatus that holds the Lebanese state hostage, subverts democratic institutions, and serves as an instrument of a foreign power’s regional strategy. Today, Hezbollah’s weapons no longer safeguard Lebanon – they safeguard Hezbollah’s power to dictate Lebanon’s future.

The foundation of any sovereign state rests on its exclusive monopoly over the use of force. In Lebanon, this principle is broken. Hezbollah maintains its own arsenal, operates under a command structure independent of the Lebanese Armed Forces, and possesses the unilateral authority to wage war or broker peace without state approval. This dual security system corrodes the very concept of sovereignty. One security force is accountable to the Lebanese people through the imperfect mechanisms of democratic governance. The other is accountable to non-Lebanese actors, deriving legitimacy from an ideology and an external agenda that often diverge from Lebanon’s national interest.

As long as Hezbollah retains its weapons, Lebanon’s sovereignty remains conditional – a slogan for political speeches rather than a reality felt by its citizens. Foreign policy decisions will remain hostage to the calculations of an armed faction whose priorities stretch far beyond Lebanon’s borders. The consequences are not theoretical. Every regional escalation risks dragging Lebanon into armed conflict, whether through rocket exchanges with Israel, covert cross-border operations, or proxy engagements in Syria and beyond. Each confrontation reinforces Lebanon’s role as a bargaining chip in geopolitical rivalries it cannot influence and should never be forced to endure.

Meanwhile, much of the Arab world is moving toward a different strategic paradigm – one rooted in diplomacy, economic cooperation, and de-escalation of conflicts. Gulf capitals are signing trade deals, investing in modernization projects, and seeking stability to attract foreign capital. Lebanon, by contrast, remains locked in a militant posture that isolates it from these opportunities. Instead of attracting investment and securing its place in a stabilizing regional order, it suffers economic isolation, diplomatic strain, and political paralysis.

Supporters of Hezbollah’s armed status argue that its arsenal serves as a deterrent against Israeli aggression. In practice, however, these weapons have failed to prevent conflict; instead, they have repeatedly invited it. From the devastating 2006 war to periodic border skirmishes, each escalation has left Lebanon’s infrastructure in ruins, displaced thousands of civilians, and deepened the country’s economic crisis. Southern Lebanon bears the scars of past confrontations, and the risk of renewed war remains constant. This so-called deterrent has proven to be a shield with a devastating price tag.

Moreover, the military balance has shifted. Israel’s advances in surveillance, missile defense, and precision targeting have eroded Hezbollah’s strategic advantage. Its arsenal is now less of a deterrent and more of a liability, providing a pretext for preemptive strikes. The true function of the weapons today is political: they are tools for preserving Hezbollah’s dominance in Lebanon’s internal power structure, not for defending the country against external threats.

The political consequences of this armed imbalance are profound. No Lebanese government can operate freely when one political actor can back its demands with the implicit – or explicit – threat of force. Cabinet deliberations, parliamentary votes, and policy reforms all occur under the shadow of Hezbollah’s military capability. This environment makes genuine reform nearly impossible. Politicians, even those opposed to Hezbollah’s influence, must weigh their positions not only against the public interest but also against the risk of provoking an armed response. The result is selective accountability, chronic paralysis, and a fertile ground for corruption.

Lebanon’s prolonged economic collapse – marked by currency freefall, banking failures, and an exodus of skilled workers – is inseparable from this political dysfunction. International donors and financial institutions have made it clear that aid, loans, and investment depend on stability, transparency, and the restoration of effective governance. None of these conditions can be met while an armed faction remains outside the chain of command of the Lebanese Armed Forces.

The longer disarmament is postponed, the more entrenched the armed status quo will become. As economic desperation deepens, the state’s capacity to confront the issue will shrink. Lebanon risks reaching a tipping point where the only path to disarmament is through national crisis or external intervention – outcomes that would further erode sovereignty rather than restore it.

Disarming Hezbollah is not a simple or purely domestic matter. It will require a coordinated strategy that combines political consensus within Lebanon, regional diplomacy with Arab partners, and the backing of the international community. The Lebanese state must make clear, both to its own citizens and to the world, that the monopoly over armed force belongs exclusively to the national army. This is not merely a technical matter of security sector reform – it is the precondition for national revival.

Achieving this will demand courage from Lebanon’s political class, unity among its fractured institutions, and a firm stance against the normalization of divided sovereignty. Regional partners must also recognize that a stable, unified Lebanon serves their collective interests, from trade to security cooperation. Political, financial, and diplomatic support from the Arab world and beyond will be essential to breaking Lebanon’s cycle of dependency on armed factions.

Ultimately, the debate over Hezbollah’s weapons is not just about disarmament. It is about Lebanon’s very identity: will it be a sovereign state governed by the rule of law, or a geopolitical pawn trapped in perpetual instability? A sovereign Lebanon could set its own foreign policy, rebuild its economy, and restore public trust in governance. A Lebanon dominated by an armed faction will remain vulnerable to external manipulation, shut out of regional opportunities, and mired in crisis.

The choice is urgent. Every delay raises the cost, politically and economically, of reclaiming the state’s authority. Disarmament is not a concession to foreign powers, nor is it an attack on a single community. It is an act of national self-preservation – the only viable path toward reclaiming Lebanon’s sovereignty, securing its future, and ensuring that its people live under a government whose authority derives from the ballot box, not the barrel of a gun.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Lebanon’s sovereignty at the brink: The urgent case for disarmament appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings