The Disarmament Dilemma: How Lebanon’s Push for Sovereignty Could Trigger Its Own Collapse
The international community’s calls for Hezbollah’s disarmament in Lebanon may sound like a path to stability, but they could instead light the fuse on a devastating proxy war that tears the country apart.
A Nation on the Brink
Lebanon finds itself trapped between competing visions of its future, with the question of Hezbollah’s weapons at the center of a high-stakes debate about sovereignty, security, and survival. Since the end of Lebanon’s civil war in 1990, Hezbollah has maintained its armed wing, positioning itself as a “resistance” force against Israeli aggression while simultaneously operating as a political party within the Lebanese government. This dual identity has created a delicate balance of power that, while imperfect, has prevented the country from sliding back into full-scale conflict.
The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), meanwhile, remain chronically underfunded and underequipped, with an annual budget of approximately $1.5 billion—a fraction of what regional powers spend on defense. The military struggles to maintain basic operations, let alone project force across the country’s diverse and often hostile terrain. This weakness isn’t accidental; it’s the product of decades of political compromise designed to prevent any single faction from dominating Lebanon’s complex sectarian landscape.
The International Pressure Cooker
Western nations, led by the United States and France, have intensified their calls for Hezbollah’s disarmament, framing it as essential for restoring Lebanese sovereignty and implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701. These demands have gained momentum following recent regional tensions and are often accompanied by promises of increased support for the LAF. However, this support has historically been limited in scope, with restrictions on weapons systems and training that would actually enable the Lebanese military to fill the security vacuum that Hezbollah’s disarmament would create.
The timing of these renewed calls is particularly precarious. Lebanon is mired in its worst economic crisis in modern history, with the currency having lost over 95% of its value since 2019. Public institutions are barely functioning, electricity is scarce, and social tensions are at a breaking point. In this environment, attempting to forcibly disarm one of the country’s most powerful factions without a viable alternative security framework isn’t just risky—it’s potentially catastrophic.
The Proxy War Scenario
History offers sobering lessons about what happens when external powers push for rapid changes in Lebanon’s security architecture. The country’s 15-year civil war was fueled in large part by competing international agendas, with various factions serving as proxies for regional and global powers. Today, the same dynamics threaten to resurface, with Iran backing Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states supporting Sunni factions, and Western powers attempting to bolster state institutions.
Should serious attempts be made to disarm Hezbollah without first building credible state alternatives, the group’s supporters—who represent a significant portion of Lebanon’s Shia population—would likely view this as an existential threat. This could trigger armed resistance not just from Hezbollah itself, but from communities that see the group as their primary protector in a fractured state. Other sectarian groups, sensing opportunity or threat, might mobilize their own militias, quickly spiraling the situation beyond anyone’s control.
The Sovereignty Paradox
The fundamental paradox is that the very pursuit of sovereignty through disarmament could destroy what remains of the Lebanese state. Real sovereignty requires not just the absence of non-state armed groups, but the presence of capable, legitimate institutions that can provide security, services, and governance to all citizens. Lebanon currently lacks these prerequisites, and building them requires time, resources, and most critically, a degree of stability that forced disarmament would shatter.
Moreover, the international community’s focus on Hezbollah’s weapons often oversimplifies Lebanon’s security challenges. The country faces threats from multiple directions: potential Israeli incursions, spillover from the Syrian conflict, Palestinian refugee camps that have become autonomous security zones, and the ever-present risk of jihadist infiltration. In this complex environment, Hezbollah’s military capabilities, however problematic for state sovereignty, serve as a deterrent that the weak Lebanese state cannot currently provide.
The path forward requires a fundamental rethinking of the approach to Lebanese sovereignty—one that prioritizes building state capacity before dismantling non-state alternatives. This means serious, long-term investment in the LAF, comprehensive economic recovery programs, and political reforms that give all Lebanese communities a genuine stake in their government. Without these foundations, calls for disarmament ring hollow and dangerous.
As Lebanon teeters on the edge of collapse, the international community faces a critical question: Will it continue to pursue ideological purity at the cost of practical stability, or can it develop a more nuanced approach that strengthens the state without triggering the very chaos it claims to prevent?
