Asher Smith | September 2025
Lebanon has long been defined by the fault lines of its sectarian system. The 1943 National Pact, later revised by the Taif Agreement of 1989, divided political power among Christians, Sunnis, Shi’a, and Druze in an attempt to preserve balance and equality in a diverse and volatile young state (www.britannica.com/event/Lebanese-National-Pact-1943). In practice, it institutionalized sectarian identities and left the state too fragmented to command a true monopoly on force. Out of that vacuum emerged Hezbollah. Founded in 1982 with backing from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards during Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon, the group grew from a Shi’a militia into a political party, a social welfare provider, and the most formidable non-state army in the Middle East. Hezbollah’s evolution gave Lebanon’s long-marginalized Shi’a community unprecedented influence, but it also carved out a “state-within-a-state” that constrained Beirut’s sovereignty and tied the country to Tehran’s regional ambitions.That contradiction is now at the center of Lebanese politics. In recent weeks, parliament has debated whether Hezbollah’s military wing should be absorbed into the Lebanese Armed Forces and brought under state authority. What has made this moment possible is not a sudden resurgence of Lebanese state capacity, but the opportunity created by Israel’s punishing offensive against Hezbollah last year. The scale of the strikes degraded parts of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure and leadership and, importantly for Hezbollah’s domestic relations, weakened its deterrence narrative as Lebanon’s defender against Israel. For the first time in years, the group’s arsenal is perceived less like a stable security asset and more like a liability to Lebanese civil society.Following the opening created by Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah, the continuation of Israeli strikes in Lebanon could potentially threaten Beirut’s attempts to disarm Hezbollah. Sovereignty is difficult to assert under current bombardments. As parliament weighs whether to bring Hezbollah’s arsenal under state control, Israeli strikes on the south shape the debate in ways that cannot be ignored. The disarmament question is as old as postwar Lebanon, but today it is unfolding under extraordinary conditions: Hezbollah is weaker than ever, yet public resistance to disarmament hardens with every strike. Many Lebanese fear that surrendering the group’s weapons now would leave the country exposed, not empowered. For Beirut, that means any move against Hezbollah must be framed as a sovereign decision, not as a concession extracted under Israeli fire, or risk collapsing any significant decisions before it begins.Israel’s stance has been blunt. Officials have signaled that military pressure will stop only when Beirut authorizes its own army to take direct action against Hezbollah’s weapons and other military capabilities. It is a familiar Israeli strategy seen across the region in the last two years: relying on overwhelming force to compel adversaries into decisive steps, leaving little room for gradual negotiation. For Lebanon’s fragile institutions, this presents both an opportunity and a potential political crisis. The strikes have cracked Hezbollah’s aura of invincibility, opening the door to territorial sovereignty-building measures that once seemed impossible. But the demand that Beirut act quickly, effectively disarming its most powerful domestic actor while under bombardment, risks destabilizing the process before it can begin.Any discussion of Lebanon’s future cannot be reduced to a bilateral track with Israel. It is inherently triangular, with Hezbollah acting as both a domestic player and a regional proxy. For Israel, Hezbollah’s arsenal, with tens of thousands of rockets capable of striking deep into its territory, represents an existential security threat and the most visible projection of Iranian influence on its northern border. For Hezbollah, the weapons are the foundation of its power and relevance: a deterrent against Israeli attacks, a guarantee of relevance within Lebanon’s sectarian balance, and a bargaining chip for Tehran against Israeli action. For the Lebanese government, however, the weapons have become a paradox. They undermine the state’s sovereignty and draw Lebanon into conflict not of its own making, while also dividing its domestic politics between those who view Hezbollah as a protector (primarily the 1.5 million Shi’a in the country who provide Hezbollah with its political backing) and the approximately 2.5 million people that have no trust in Hezbollah. This reflects that the recent parliamentary debates are about more than technical disarmament. At stake is the question of who speaks for Lebanon: a militia with regional ties or the state’s formal institutions. Israel has continued its strikes on Hezbollah positions while signaling a readiness for talks, placing added pressure on Beirut to act. The pace of parliament’s response will be decisive. Moving too slowly risks further escalation from Israel, while a rapid push against Hezbollah risks destabilizing Lebanon’s fragile balance and sparking renewed violence.The outcomes of the current debate could fall along three broad paths, each shaped by the pressure of Israeli strikes and the fragility of Lebanon’s institutions. The first, and most ambitious, would be the integration of Hezbollah’s military wing into the Lebanese Armed Forces. That step would place the country’s monopoly on force back in the hands of the state, while still allowing Hezbollah to function as a political party. Such a move could strengthen Beirut’s claim to territorial sovereignty and create conditions for limited diplomatic arrangements with Israel, particularly on border demarcation and ceasefire guarantees. A second, less sweeping path is partial reform. Under this scenario, Hezbollah would retain significant military capacity but accept constraints, such as transferring select weapons systems to the army or agreeing to halt unilateral operations along the border. This would fall short of full control of military capabilities in Lebanon, yet it could ease immediate tensions and provide time for Lebanon’s institutions to recover strength. The third potential outcome is stalemate. Hezbollah has so far refrained from resuming large-scale rocket fire on Israeli cities, even as ceasefire arrangements have frayed. That makes a renewed offensive less likely in the near term. But the disarmament talks could still collapse into a political standoff between Hezbollah’s factions and the rest of the Lebanese government. In such a scenario, Israel would likely continue its strikes in the south while Beirut remains unable to claim progress, gradually eroding public confidence in the state’s ability to act.For now, the prospect of formal normalization between Israel and Lebanon remains remote. The weight of history, Hezbollah’s entrenched political role, and ongoing Israeli strikes all stand in the way of a full diplomatic breakthrough. Yet the weakening of Hezbollah’s military capacity and the debates now unfolding in Beirut create space for a different kind of progress. A shift toward greater Lebanese sovereignty, combined with Israeli restraint, could open the door to practical understandings—on border demarcation, security coordination, and the shared fight against non-state militant groups that destabilize the region. This kind of limited but functional cooperation is precisely the sort of negotiated diplomacy that the Abraham Accords were designed to encourage. If Lebanon cannot yet join the accords formally, it may still move toward the spirit of regional partnership they represent.
עִבְרִית 
English