![Hacking Lebanese Politics #5 [Updated]: Hezbollah’s disarmament: All you need to know](https://s.lorientlejour.com/storage/attachments/1458/hlp5_481813.jpg/r/1200/hlp5_481813.jpg "Hacking Lebanese Politics #5 [Updated]: Hezbollah’s disarmament: All you need to know")
Illustration by Jaimee Lee Haddad
This week, we’re circling back to a previous edition of HLP to provide an update on one of the biggest ongoing questions in Lebanon: Can the Lebanese state really reclaim control over all military weapons?
A lot has changed since then, and a lot hasn’t.
Back in April, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem issued a defiant warning: “We will cut off the hand of those who try” to disarm the resistance. Now, three months later, that defiance is being tested.
On July 7, U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack landed in Beirut with a clear demand: Lebanon must finalize its stance on disarmament. The visit followed Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa, and ramped up the pressure on Lebanese leaders already engaged in behind-the-scenes talks about a clear disarmament roadmap.
But their first draft response fell short, avoiding a direct commitment to state control over weapons. The U.S. rejected it, and a revised version with tougher language was submitted.
So where do things stand now? And what is at stake?
1. Back to basics: What was set out in the cease-fire agreement, U.N. Resolution 1701 and 1559, and the Taif accord?
The November 2024 cease-fire, brokered by the U.S. and France, and agreed upon by Hezbollah, aimed to put a stop to the cycle of violence between Israel and Hezbollah. Its main points:
- The Israeli army should totally leave southern Lebanon within 60 days.
- The Lebanese Army should move in and take on all security responsibilities in southern Lebanon.
- Hezbollah should dismantle its military infrastructure.
- The Lebanese Security Forces, Lebanese Army and UNIFIL will be the only entities authorized to carry weapons or deploy troops in southern Lebanon.
- A five-country team (including the U.S. and France) would ensure everyone played by the rules.
These terms echo U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 (from 2006), which basically says that no one can have weapons except the Lebanese state.
Resolution 1701 also references “the full implementation of relevant provisions of the Taif Accord (1989) and Resolution 1559 (2004) that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon.”
2. What are President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam’s takes and what is the state’s actual plan for disarmament?
President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam continue to say that only the state should hold weapons, but they’ve offered no clear roadmap. Both of them want progress, but through dialogue, not escalation, avoiding confrontation with Hezbollah.
The revised response to the U.S. envoy included stronger language about the state’s monopoly over arms and referred to constitutional authority over decisions of war and peace.
The document was reportedly finalized around three key points:
- Commitment to U.S. demands for a disarmament timeline tied to Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, post-war reconstruction and the release of Lebanese prisoners.
- A second phase addressing heavy weapons and military positions north of the Litani, to be handled gradually and in tandem with activating the monitoring mechanism set out in the cease-fire.
- No fixed timeline for this second phase, which remains subject to internal Lebanese consensus.
The response also outlines broader Lebanese demands, including the return of Syrian refugees and border control. While it does signal greater alignment with international expectations, it still avoids naming Hezbollah and lacks a clear enforcement mechanism.
For now, it looks more like a diplomatic balancing act than an actionable plan.
These terms echo U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 (from 2006), which basically says that no one can have weapons except the Lebanese state.
Also, Resolution 1701 references “the full implementation of relevant provisions of the Taif Accord (1989) and Resolution 1559 (2004) that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon.”
Yet here we are, nearly two decades later, and Hezbollah is the most powerful armed group in the country, doing its own thing outside the framework of the Lebanese state.
3. Why hasn’t this been sorted out already, and what is Hezbollah saying about it?
- The timing of this debate is no coincidence. Hezbollah is under pressure after months of clashes with Israel and the shift in power dynamics following the weakening of the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance” in the region.
- The party argues that disarming would leave Lebanon vulnerable, especially if Israel were to attack again. Hezbollah claims it’s open to giving up its weapons, but only if the state can guarantee a real national defense strategy.
- Hezbollah has been warning about a possible jihadist resurgence. Its media outlets reported the arrest of IS-linked cells and accused Mossad of activating sleeper networks. Recently, a group calling itself Saraya Ansar al-Sunna claimed attacks in Syria and threatened Lebanon. Critics see this as a familiar tactic: use fear to justify holding onto weapons. Still, some security officials admit the threat may be real.
- To date, more than 529 military structures and weapon caches have been dismantled in southern Lebanon.
- An additional 1,500 soldiers have been deployed in southern Lebanon so far, bringing the total to 6,000. A further 4,000 are in the process of being recruited.
