The Media Line: Is Hezbollah’s Disarmament a Real Option? 

Audio By Carbonatix

Enlarge

Is Hezbollah’s Disarmament a Real Option? 

Middle East expert Abraham Levine says that though Lebanon is headed in ‘the right direction,’ Hezbollah disarmament is ‘unrealistic’ 

By Giorgia Valente / The Media Line 

Nearly two years into the war in Gaza, the debate over Hezbollah’s weapons has become a defining issue for Lebanon’s future. The group’s arsenal — long justified as a shield against Israel — is now at the center of political deadlock, economic stagnation and international pressure. For many Lebanese, the question is no longer whether Hezbollah should disarm, but whether their country can move forward without doing so. 

“I do not see Hezbollah giving up the whole prospect of being the armed resistance. That’s the core of their ideology,” Abraham Levine, digital media director at the ALMA Center, said to The Media Line. “The flag has a gun on it. It doesn’t have a map of Lebanon. Expecting them to hand back their weapons is simply unrealistic,” he added. 

From Washington, the tone is more cautious. “Full, immediate Hezbollah disarmament may be unrealistic,” Patricia Karam, vice president of policy and communications at the American Task Force on Lebanon, said to The Media Line. “The group is politically entrenched, its base still views weapons as protection, and Iran sees its arsenal as part of its regional deterrent. Without decisive domestic action and credible international enforcement, the status quo is the likeliest outcome,” she added. 

Lebanon’s internal divisions only complicate matters. The country’s power-sharing system makes bold moves nearly impossible. Parties like the Lebanese Forces and Kataeb demand full disarmament, calling it the only way to restore sovereignty. Hezbollah and Amal reject any timetable, while the Free Patriotic Movement, which once floated the idea of a “national defense strategy,” has shifted its stance in recent months, insisting that weapons must be in the hands of the state and openly urging Hezbollah to hand them over. 

“The government is definitely moving in the right direction,” Levine noted. “But I do not see a real change in reality. Finding weapons in a few places isn’t the same as a clear path to disarmament. Hezbollah still holds a stronghold over the country,” he added. 

Karam described the same stalemate from another angle. “Because the system requires consensus, even a pro-disarmament cabinet has to move carefully to avoid backlash,” she explained. “That effectively gives Hezbollah a veto, slowing any real progress,” she added. 

At the heart of the dilemma lies the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). Despite being one of the most respected institutions, the army remains underfunded and dependent on foreign aid. 

“The army is supported by the United States, France and the Gulf, but it does not have the capacity to forcibly dismantle Hezbollah’s entrenched networks,” Karam said. “It is under-resourced and constrained by the need to preserve cross-sectarian cohesion — all of which limit decisive action without clear political will,” she added. 

Levine pointed to how blurred the lines remain. He recalled a recent incident in which Lebanese soldiers were killed while entering a suspected Hezbollah site. “That was a Lebanese army operation against Hezbollah and one of the army’s soldiers got killed,” he said. “Despite the nature of his death, the funeral turned into a Hezbollah show of force. It shows just how mixed everything is. Expecting real cooperation between the IDF and the LAF is over-optimistic,” he added. 

International pressure has done little to tip the balance. The United Nations has reaffirmed resolutions calling for disarmament, but few believe its peacekeepers can challenge Hezbollah’s presence in the south. 

“The UN doesn’t have leverage. They’ll never clash with Hezbollah,” Levine said. “For Israel, they’re more of a complication than a solution,” he added. 

For Karam, real leverage lies elsewhere. “Resolutions, aid conditionality, even sanctions — they help, but none can compel Hezbollah to disarm,” she argued. “Washington and Europe can link assistance to concrete steps toward a state monopoly on arms, and Gulf states can amplify that with major support. But in the end, it hinges on Lebanese leaders choosing to act,” she added. 

Public opinion is another factor. Once broadly accepted as a resistance force, Hezbollah today divides the country more than unites it. 

“It’s a real conflict in Lebanon,” Levine said. “Many people say: We don’t care about Hezbollah either way, but we’re only losing because of them. Others still support them. And many are just afraid to speak out,” he added. 

Karam sees a clear shift. “Non-Shiite support has eroded since Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria and the more recent war with Israel,” she said. “While support within its Shiite base endures, across much of the country there’s now a growing consensus that weapons should be in the hands of the state,” she added. 

The economic cost is just as pressing. Lebanon remains in freefall, its recovery bound to the question of who controls weapons. 

“Weapons should only be in the hands of an army. If it’s a militia, by definition, it’s illegal,” Levine said. “Israel is hitting Hezbollah positions weekly, sometimes daily. In a way, we’re doing Lebanon’s job for them,” he added. 

Karam agreed that the economic stakes are clear. “Disarmament would reassure Gulf and Western donors and boost investor confidence,” she said. “Refusal to disarm sustains stagnation. Financial institutions and states see the arsenal as a core obstacle to stability and reform,” she added. 

Regarding the possibility of peace between Lebanon and Israel, the experts align. 

“If Hezbollah were disarmed, Lebanon would be the easiest country to make peace with,” Levine argued. “The land disputes are minimal compared to elsewhere, like in the case of a Palestinian state and Syria. Without Hezbollah, the real dispute does not exist,” he added. 

Karam was more measured but did not disagree. “Disarmament could remove the single biggest obstacle to peace with Israel,” she said. “Whether such a peace would endure depends on how the process is managed and what comes alongside it,” she concluded.