Lebanon’s Arms Monopoly Paradox: When State Authority Meets Armed Resistance

Lebanon faces an existential question as reports emerge of Hezbollah’s reluctance to comply with weapons regulations: can a state truly govern when it lacks monopoly over the instruments of force?

The Fragile Balance of Lebanese Sovereignty

Lebanon’s struggle to assert control over armed groups within its borders reflects decades of internal division and external interference. The country’s unique confessional system, designed to balance power among its diverse religious communities, has inadvertently created space for non-state actors to flourish. Hezbollah, which emerged during the 1982 Israeli invasion, has evolved from a resistance movement into Lebanon’s most powerful military force, operating parallel to—and often superseding—the Lebanese Armed Forces.

The reported lack of cooperation on arms monopoly implementation touches the heart of Lebanon’s sovereignty crisis. Since the end of the civil war in 1990, successive Lebanese governments have grappled with integrating or disarming various militias. While most groups eventually disbanded or merged with state institutions, Hezbollah retained its weapons under the banner of resistance against Israeli occupation, a position that garnered significant domestic support, particularly among Shia communities in southern Lebanon.

Regional Implications and International Pressure

The timing of these ministerial sources’ revelations is particularly significant given the broader regional realignment following recent conflicts in Gaza and ongoing tensions along the Lebanese-Israeli border. International actors, including the United Nations through Resolution 1701, have long called for the Lebanese state to exercise full authority over its territory. Yet implementation remains elusive, complicated by Hezbollah’s dual role as both a political party with significant parliamentary representation and an armed force with sophisticated military capabilities.

For Lebanon’s government, caught between international demands for disarmament and domestic political realities, the situation presents an almost impossible dilemma. Push too hard, and risk internal conflict; do nothing, and face international isolation and potential sanctions. The country’s economic collapse has only heightened these tensions, as citizens increasingly question whether resources devoted to maintaining parallel military structures might be better spent on basic services and economic recovery.

The State Within a State

What makes Hezbollah’s position unique is its deep integration into Lebanese society beyond its military wing. The organization operates extensive social services, including hospitals, schools, and economic support networks that often outperform their state counterparts. This comprehensive approach has created dependencies that make simple disarmament politically and practically unfeasible. The group’s supporters argue that until the Lebanese state can guarantee security and services, particularly in historically marginalized areas, calls for disarmament ring hollow.

As Lebanon navigates this precarious moment, the fundamental question remains: can a modern state function effectively when it must negotiate with, rather than command, armed groups within its borders? The answer may determine not just Lebanon’s future stability, but serve as a bellwether for other states grappling with similar challenges of fractured sovereignty in an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.