Lebanon’s Disarmament Dilemma: Cabinet Rift Exposes Risks of Confronting Hezbollah

Strategic Intelligence Report
Written By Matt Helmkamp

Executive Summary

Lebanon’s Cabinet debate over an army-drafted plan to disarm Hezbollah exposed deep political fractures, with Shiite ministers staging a walkout and Hezbollah rejecting the decision as illegitimate. The government faces intense U.S. and Israeli pressure to enforce the plan by year’s end, but implementation is constrained by Israeli ceasefire violations, fragile domestic stability, and the risk of reigniting civil conflict.

Key Judgments

  1. Lebanon’s plan to disarm Hezbollah is politically fragile, with Shiite ministers walking out of Cabinet sessions and denouncing the decision as unconstitutional.

    Evidence: Hezbollah and Amal ministers boycotted discussions, calling the army’s plan illegitimate, while Information Minister Paul Morcos emphasized implementation would be limited by resources. (Associated Press, Al Manar, Media Relations Lebanon)

  2. Israel’s ongoing violations of the November 2024 ceasefire undermine Lebanese government credibility and give Hezbollah justification to retain its arms.

    Evidence: Israeli forces occupy five strategic hills inside Lebanon, continue near-daily strikes, and recently killed civilians in southern Lebanon despite the truce. (Associated Press, PBS News Hour)

  3. The disarmament plan is seen domestically as a U.S.-driven agenda, deepening Hezbollah’s narrative that Washington seeks to weaken Lebanon in Israel’s favor.

    Evidence: Hezbollah accused Beirut of “caving to American diktats,” while reports indicate U.S. officials warned of renewed Israeli war and loss of U.S. military aid if disarmament stalls. (Press TV, PBS News Hour, New York Times reporting cited)

  4. Lebanon’s army is underfunded, under-equipped, and politically constrained, raising doubts about its ability to enforce the plan or serve as an effective substitute for Hezbollah’s deterrent role.

    Evidence: The LAF receives about $150 million annually from Washington—1% of U.S. aid to Israel—and lacks the air defense capacity to deter Israeli overflights and strikes. (PBS News Hour)

  5. The risk of internal conflict looms if the state attempts to forcibly disarm Hezbollah, as the group retains heavy missiles and drones beyond the Litani River.

    Evidence: Lebanese officials admit that a direct attempt to seize Hezbollah’s arsenal could trigger civil war; Hezbollah insists it will not disarm until Israel fully withdraws. (Associated Press, Al Mayadeen English)

Analysis

The latest Cabinet walkout underscores Lebanon’s central political paradox: the state’s commitment to international obligations to limit weapons to official institutions versus Hezbollah’s entrenched role as both a political actor and the country’s most capable armed force. The army’s disarmament plan, formally commissioned under U.S. pressure, is already faltering in execution. By shifting from approval to “welcoming” the plan and requiring monthly reports, the Cabinet has implicitly acknowledged its own limits.

For Hezbollah and its Shiite allies, the issue is existential. The group views the plan as externally imposed and unconstitutional, designed to strip Lebanon of its deterrent while Israel continues its violations. Israeli strikes, new outposts, and occupation of Lebanese territory reinforce Hezbollah’s argument that disarmament would invite greater aggression. This logic resonates with much of the Shiite community, which regards Hezbollah’s arsenal as insurance against another 2006-style war.

From Washington’s perspective, Lebanon’s fragile government risks collapse if Hezbollah remains armed, making U.S. investment in the LAF conditional on progress. The Trump administration has tied $150 million in annual aid—and potentially $1 billion per year—directly to disarmament. But the LAF’s limitations are stark: it lacks heavy air defense, modern strike capabilities, and the political mandate to replace Hezbollah as a deterrent force. The risk is that a weak army tasked with disarmament could become a flashpoint for renewed sectarian conflict.

Hezbollah’s resistance narrative is reinforced by historical memory. The forced expulsion and disarmament of the PLO in 1982 left Palestinian camps defenseless and paved the way for massacres like Sabra and Shatila. Hezbollah frames its role as preventing Lebanon from repeating Syria’s fate—disarmed, destabilized, and vulnerable to Israeli and Western dominance. By drawing parallels to Algeria’s FLN, Hezbollah positions itself not as a militia undermining the state but as a liberation force whose weapons are essential for sovereignty.

The international dimension complicates matters further. The ceasefire guaranteed by the U.S. and France has been openly violated by Israel, eroding faith in guarantees from external powers. Hezbollah capitalizes on this inconsistency to argue that disarmament would amount to surrender. Meanwhile, Lebanon’s Christian and Sunni blocs are split—some viewing disarmament as a chance to restore sovereignty, others fearing it will dismantle the delicate sectarian balance.

Ultimately, Lebanon faces three unenviable paths: pursue gradual integration of Hezbollah’s arsenal into state control while avoiding confrontation; succumb to external pressure and risk civil strife; or allow Hezbollah to retain its weapons, risking international isolation and conditional aid withdrawal. Each option comes with strategic costs, but the immediate trajectory suggests paralysis and delay, as neither the state nor Hezbollah is willing to concede ground while Israel continues military pressure.

Sources

Matt Helmkamp
Next

White Nationalism 3.0: Active Clubs, Sewell, and the Brewing Extremist Movement