As Lebanon grapples with the repercussions of ongoing conflict, the nation’s leadership faces an uphill battle in addressing the dual threats of internal divisions and external aggression. President Joseph Aoun, who took office in the wake of a devastating war between Israel and Hezbollah, aims to navigate this precarious landscape. However, the path to peace is fraught with complexities, primarily stemming from Hezbollah’s entrenched position within Lebanese society and its allegiance to Iranian interests.
The Fragile Ceasefire and Ongoing Struggles
In August, I had the opportunity to meet President Aoun at the Baabda Palace, perched on a hillside overlooking Beirut. He expressed a belief in his ability to address the longstanding issue of Hezbollah’s arsenal, stating, “I was born an optimist.” At that time, a tenuous ceasefire had been established following the November 2024 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, but tensions remained high. Israeli forces continued to conduct regular airstrikes targeting Hezbollah affiliates, leaving many Lebanese living under the constant shadow of violence.
Supporters of Hezbollah view the group as a bulwark against Israeli aggression, while critics argue that its military ambitions serve only to entangle Lebanon in further hostilities, primarily to fulfil Iran’s regional agenda. The assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in February ignited renewed hostilities, with Hezbollah retaliating by launching rockets into Israel, which in turn prompted a new wave of airstrikes from Israel.
The Unyielding Nature of Hezbollah
Hezbollah, established during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in the 1980s, has evolved into a formidable political and military force. The group, funded and equipped by Iran, has resisted disarmament despite international calls, including UN Resolution 1701, which sought to end hostilities following the 2006 war. President Aoun’s proposal to negotiate directly with Israel marked a significant diplomatic overture from a nation that lacks formal ties with its neighbour, yet the Lebanese government’s influence over Hezbollah remains minimal.
Aoun’s commitment to a “state monopoly on arms” faces significant obstacles. The Lebanese army, underfunded and under-equipped, lacks the capacity to disarm Hezbollah forcibly. Aoun has cautioned against any attempts to remove Hezbollah’s weapons without its consent, fearing that such actions could plunge Lebanon back into civil strife.
Sectarian Dynamics and Public Sentiment
Lebanon’s complex sectarian landscape complicates the disarmament dialogue. The nation officially recognises 18 religious sects, with approximately two-thirds of its 5.8 million population identifying as Muslim, and the remaining third as Christian. A December Gallup poll indicated that nearly 80% of Lebanese citizens supported the idea that only the national army should possess weapons, yet this sentiment is not uniformly shared across sectarian lines. While Christians, Druze, and Sunni populations overwhelmingly supported disarmament, a significant proportion of Shia respondents opposed it.
Michael Young, a senior editor at the Carnegie Center in Beirut, argues that the Lebanese army’s inability to disarm Hezbollah is not merely a matter of will but a reflection of its limited capability. Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, has firmly rejected the notion of disarmament, asserting that any attempt to impose such a measure would lead to a catastrophic failure.
The Road Ahead: Negotiation or Escalation?
As hostilities escalate, with more than 1.2 million people displaced within Lebanon since the onset of the current conflict, fears of sectarian tensions resurfacing loom large. Clashes between communities have erupted as residents grapple with the reality of ongoing Israeli strikes, which frequently target areas beyond Hezbollah’s stronghold, thus fuelling suspicion and hostility towards newcomers.
Hezbollah’s survival is tied to its narrative of resistance against Israeli forces, which reinforces its grip on power. Its military capabilities have been replenished following the 2024 conflict, supported by Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This relationship underscores the notion that Hezbollah’s future may ultimately be dictated by decisions made in Tehran rather than Beirut.
Why it Matters
The struggle for peace in Lebanon transcends mere political negotiations; it encompasses a deep-seated conflict involving identity, security, and historical grievances. The disarmament of Hezbollah is not merely a tactical issue; it is intertwined with the lived experiences of millions who fear losing their foothold in a volatile region. As Lebanon stands at a crossroads, the outcomes of these negotiations will significantly shape not only the nation’s immediate future but also the broader dynamics of power and influence across the Middle East.
