PNN – The most important analytical error in the case of Lebanon is ignoring the role of the resistance as a deterrent. Hezbollah has become the backbone of Lebanon’s national security, and its elimination would mean a free fall into a security vacuum.
While Lebanon’s contemporary history has always been a scene of clashing wills, fragile alliances, and foreign ambitions, the issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament has once again become the focus of media attention, international diplomacy, and internal conflicts. This time, however, the issue is not simply a security or political decision, but rather a complete redefinition of the nature of Lebanese sovereignty and the regional security landscape. Is the insistence on Hezbollah’s disarmament a step toward state consolidation or a green light for the reoccupation of southern Lebanon?
A historical retelling of a popular deterrence
To understand the sensitivity of this case, one must go back to July 2006, when Hezbollah, with the bravery of its popular forces and relying on indigenous knowledge, stopped the Israeli army in a 33-day battle and transformed the security equation of the region. That victory was not merely a military success; it was rather a confirmation of the fact that Lebanon’s official and diplomatic structure alone is not sufficient against external threats and that a popular resistance force can fill geopolitical gaps.
This role has been proven many times since then in Syria, Iraq, and even in confronting extremist groups inside Lebanon. But now, in 2025, with a fragile atmosphere in the state structure, declining domestic and foreign investment, economic instability, and increasing diplomatic pressure, the project of disarming the resistance has once again been on the agenda; with the same old packaging but new goals.
Read more:
Lebanese Representative: Why are Washington and Tel Aviv afraid of resistance weapons?
Behind the scenes of the disarmament plan: democracy or dependency?
Western media, especially in Washington and Paris, are trying to paint a reasonable and popular image of this demand by insisting on the “necessity of a monopoly on weapons in the hands of the government.” But can this demand be a stabilizing force in a situation where the Lebanese army is neither a logistical nor a psychological alternative to Hezbollah?
The reality is that the Lebanese army, with its budget crisis, sectarian divisions, and heavy dependence on foreign aid, lacks the will and ability to play an independent deterrent role. On the other hand, part of the army is aligned with Hezbollah, and disarming this group could plunge the army into a crisis of cohesion and legitimacy.
Israel, the undisputed winner of this scenario
Recent developments, from targeted assassinations to bombings of southern Lebanon, have shown that the Zionist regime has a clear plan to eliminate the resistance in Lebanon. The physical elimination of Hezbollah’s top leaders is only part of this scenario; one that, without a coherent resistance, could lead to the reoccupation of key areas in the south, the Bekaa, and even the capital. In such circumstances, disarming the resistance would be not a tactical decision, but political suicide.
Bitter regional experiences; unanswered warnings
Iraq after the fall of Saddam is a painful example of a disarmament project without foresight. The dissolution of the army and the abandonment of popular forces paved the way for the formation of ISIS and the practical disintegration of the country. In Libya, the destruction of resistance structures after Gaddafi transformed the country into a collection of paramilitary states. Lebanon, with its complex and fragile social fabric, cannot afford to see such scenarios repeated.
Disarmament: A tool of influence or a solution to reform?
The most important analytical error in the Lebanese case is to ignore the role of the resistance as a deterrent. Hezbollah has effectively become the backbone of Lebanon’s national security. Removing this pillar, without truly strengthening state institutions, means a free fall into a security vacuum.
Therefore, Western diplomatic offers to halt Israeli operations in exchange for arms delivery are practically like empty promises in past agreements. Without implementation guarantees, no agreement can be sustainable under pressure.
Alternative solutions: from confrontation to synergy
Lebanon needs a multi-dimensional solution that neither eliminates Hezbollah nor weakens the army. A model of synergy between the government and the resistance can both maintain deterrence and pave the way for structural reforms.
Proposals such as incorporating the resistance into the official defense structure, or its participation in the Supreme National Security Council, are solutions that can provide a platform for dialogue and prevent the radicalization of the political atmosphere.
Economic independence: lost in the geopolitical game
The promise of access to international financial aid, if Hezbollah disarms, is nothing more than a mirage. The experience of past years has shown that this aid has either been accompanied by onerous conditions or has never been implemented. Greater dependence on the International Monetary Fund and the European Union means increased interference in Lebanon’s domestic politics and economy.
What Lebanon needs is an economic structure based on transparency, national capital circulation, and breaking the chains of dependence on the West. Otherwise, any financial assistance will become a noose that ties Lebanese politics to foreign interests.
The end of a game, or the beginning of a new season?
Lebanon stands at a point today where any decision could shape a different future. Disarming Hezbollah, in the absence of a comprehensive plan for security and the economy, will not only not strengthen the state, but will pave the way for further collapse. In contrast, intelligent synergy between the resistance and the government, with real reforms and sustainable development, can once again introduce Lebanon as an independent, resilient, and secure country.
Ultimately, Lebanon’s fate will be determined not by diplomatic statements, but by a realistic understanding of power equations, the role of grassroots actors, and the bitter experiences of its neighbors. Any step taken without regard to these realities is a step toward repeating history, not writing it.