Saudi Arabia Could Have Potential Role in Disarming Hezbollah
I couldn't help but laugh with the Greek playwright Aristophanes in his biting political play The Frogs , where his hero Dionysus exclaims, 'Oh frogs, oh frogs. Oh many frogs,' as he navigates a strange and difficult journey to the underworld. This came to my mind while watching some scenes from Hezbollah's own theatrical performance of The Frogs, as it maneuvers and evades the issue of 'disarmament' and the 'exclusivity of Hezbollah's weapons,' voiced by the Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem.
Hassan Nasrallah repeatedly dismissed calls to disarm, insisting that Hezbollah's weapons are necessary for resisting Israel. He also rejected limiting arms to the state insisting that they are essential to defend the country, threatening to 'cut off the hand' of anyone who attempts to interfere with Hezbollah's weapons!!
How similar tonight is to yesterday—voiced now by the current Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, who assumed his position on October 29, 2024, after the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah. In a tone strikingly familiar, Qassem emphasized the same words, sentences and meanings after initially maneuvering and evading the issue. He insisted that everyone who calls for disarmament serve the Israeli agenda, underscoring that Hezbollah's weapons are a major part of Lebanon's strength and considered them a 'resistance' weapon to defend the country against Israeli threats. He said that 'disarmament' serves the interests of Israel and utterly rejected any external pressure to disarm. Catastrophic losses due to 'Hezbollah's weapons'
Hezbollah has inflicted catastrophic losses on Lebanon, resulting in thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of injuries, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians from southern Lebanon and other regions.
This has triggered a major humanitarian crisis, devastated infrastructure, and led to billions of dollars in reconstruction costs, with the destruction of entire villages in the south. Let us not forget the wave of assassinations _ beginning with former Secretary-General and Iran's strongman in the region Hassan Nasrallah and expanding to several senior party leaders.
The threats have now reached to the current Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, whose 'croaking' we hear from time to time when instructions come to him from People's Palace Museum or the Presidential Palace of Protocol, where he is said to communicate with Ali Khamenei, who has assumed the responsibility of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran since 1989.
However, the principled stance—or orthopraxy— of President Joseph Aoun, who held his post on January 9, 2025, remains a solid and resolute bulwark against what Sheikh Naim Qassem and his frogs have said! Meanwhile, the term orthopraxy , rooted in Greek, means sound or correct conduct.
The main references for the issue of disarmament in Lebanon are represented by United Nations resolutions, the most prominent of which are: Resolution 1559 (2004) that calls for the disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias and affirms that the monopoly on the use of force should rest solely with the Lebanese state.
Resolution 1701 (2006), adopted in the aftermath of the July 2006 war, calls for cessation of hostilities and an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese government controlling all its territory. It also demands the establishment of a weapons-free buffer zone between the Blue Line and the Litani River. Political epistemology in the face of 'Hezbollah's exclusive weapons'
Political epistemology—if we may borrow the term— is more deeply concerned with how we know and what gives us the right to claim that we know. In this context, it can serve as a useful lens for understanding Hezbollah's 'demagoguery' and the 'exclusivity of Hezbollah's weapons,' which receives instructions from the 'Leadership House' (in Persian: Bayt-e Rahbari), the residence and office of Iran's Supreme Leader since June 4, 1989—just one day after Ayatollah Khomeini's death.
But what have Hezbollah's weapons done to Lebanon other than destruction, devastation, and economic collapse, along with direct losses estimated at $14 billion and indirect economic losses reaching $7.2 billion? Estimates for the cost of rebuilding Lebanon in the wake of the conflict with Israel range between $11 and $15 billion, with damage to infrastructure and buildings reaching $6.8 billion.
Reconstruction funding and efforts to revive Lebanon's economy relies on the 'exclusivity of Hezbollah's weapons' raising demands that all arms be placed under state authority to ensure national sovereignty. This comes at a time when Israel is threatening to strike Hezbollah's weapons depots, carry out further assassinations of its leaders and members, and cause more devastation to Lebanon. Saudi diplomacy and the effective role in resolving regional issues
As Saudi Arabia plays a strategic role in advancing the two-state solution after the success of New York Conference and the wave of international recognition of the State of Palestine, Saudi diplomacy can also play a constructive role in the Lebanese issue.
The Kingdom has played pivotal roles in Lebanon for decades, especially since the end of the Lebanese civil war in 1989. Most notably, Saudi Arabia was the main sponsor of the Taif Agreement, which put an end to the civil war in Lebanon and laid the groundwork for a renewed political order based on coexistence and balance. After the civil war, the Kingdom provided economic support to foster the infrastructure and rebuild Lebanon, emphasizing the rejection of sectarianism. This came alongside the Kingdom's diplomatic and political mediation to support Lebanon, where bilateral relations are deeply rooted.
King Abdulaziz Al Saud enlisted Lebanese expertise at the beginning of the establishment of the Kingdom, and Lebanon was a stop for the flow of Saudi tourists. The visit of newly elected Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to the Kingdom in January 2024 and his meeting with the Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz and his Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, stood as a testament to these common ties between both countries and the significance of the Kingdom's pivotal role in various regional issues.
This underscores the Kingdom's potential role in disarming Hezbollah in Lebanon, as it views the group's arsenal as a threat to the security and stability of the region. The Kingdom has repeatedly called for Hezbollah's disarmament, highlighting that Lebanon cannot achieve lasting stability while the group possesses weapons — undermining the institutions of the Lebanese state and hinders the independence of the Lebanese political decision. The Kingdom also saw Hezbollah's relations with Iran as a tool for Tehran to expand its regional influence.
However, the current détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran can introduce a new dynamic for Saudi diplomacy.
Related Topics:
Lebanon's President Vows to Disarm Hezbollah Amid Rising Tensions
US Envoy Warns Hezbollah Against Iran-Israel War Involvement
Year-end Review: Hezbollah-Israel Conflict Ends with Ceasefire in 2024
Short link :
Post Views: 25
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Lebanese state and Hezbollah face their most difficult hour
Can Lebanon become a normal state again, one that makes decisions through state institutions and that respects its commitments in line with international laws? Can Hezbollah acknowledge that the 'Axis of Resistance' is no more, and that it has no choice but to return to Lebanon and close the chapter of the 'regional player?' Can the party agree to a lesser role for Lebanon if Iran agrees to a lesser role in the region in recognition of the new balance of power? It does not take a genius to recognize that the situation in Lebanon has not changed, even though the features of this new reality have yet to be fully formed. Joseph Aoun was sworn in as president with Arab and international backing and under the slogan of reclaiming the state with all of its institutions. Nawaf Salam was named prime minister with the same goals. However, it was evident that Lebanon would not enjoy regional and international support for its reconstruction unless the decisions that are carried out in the south are restored to the state alone. I recalled what an Arab politician once told me. He said the Axis of Resistance was based on three pillars: The first was Gen. Qassem Soleimani, with his unique position in the Iranian supreme leader's circle and role in exporting the revolution that is enshrined in the Iranian constitution. The second was Hassan Nasrallah, who was Soleimani's partner in building the axis in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. The third was Syria, which acted as the supply route for arms, 'advisers,' and funds from Tehran to Beirut passing through Iraq. What is left of Hezbollah's regional role now that Soleimani and Nasrallah are dead, and the Syrian 'bridge' has been severed with the ousting of former leader Bashar Assad? The politician said Hezbollah is undoubtedly going through the most difficult phase since its establishment in the wake of the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. Nasrallah and Soleimani are no more, and the Syrian Arab Republic President Ahmed Al-Sharaa has not forgotten what the pair did to keep Assad's regime alive. Tehran has suffered from Israeli jets breaching its skies. There is no doubt that Hezbollah fought fiercely, but there can be no denying Israel's superiority and how it succeeded in eliminating the pillars of the axis. This reality prompted Aoun to dare to declare the facts as they are after he realized that Lebanon was at risk of more Israeli violations and that it would not get out from under the rubble without paying a price — Hezbollah and its weapons. So, he openly declared what his predecessors had avoided saying explicitly: The possession of weapons should be restricted to the army and Hezbollah must disarm. Hezbollah is obviously having a hard time accepting this demand, which is effectively calling on it to abandon its regional exploits and become a local party that does not monopolize the decision of war and peace and has no military arsenal. In other words, it no longer has the right to name presidents and veto any Lebanese decisions that do not align with its regional vision. In early summer 2004, I held a meeting with Assad, with discussions focusing on the US invasion of Iraq and its impact on the region. I had to ask about Lebanon, where Syrian troops were deployed throughout its territories and where Syria held sway over its decisions. The country was then ruled by President Emile Lahoud. Assad said that his term would end in the fall. I asked him about the rumors that the term would be extended, to which he replied: 'Wasn't the extension of Elias Hrawi's term costly?' I agreed, and Assad added: 'Don't you think Lahoud's extension will be even more costly?' And I had to agree. Assad revealed that he had a list of possible presidential candidates, including Jean Obeid, whom he said was skilled at politics, but would be no match for Rafik Hariri. Asked who his preferred candidate was, he tried to imply that the Lebanese themselves would decide in the end. I told him that I was not some ignorant stranger and that I knew how things worked in Lebanon. At my insistence, Assad told me he favored Suleiman Frangieh, whom he praised. Will Hezbollah assume the responsibility for the isolation that will befall Lebanon if it insists on hanging on to its arsenal? Ghassan Charbel In the end, Lahoud's term was extended and Frangieh was ruled out as a candidate, perhaps because he was a family friend of the Assads. I returned to Syria that fall and asked Assad what prompted the extension, to which he replied that a 'friend' advised him that Frangieh needed to forge more foreign relations, especially in the region. Frangieh would later reveal to me that the 'friend' was none other than Nasrallah, who urged Assad to extend Lahoud's term, a decision that would be costly for Syria after Hariri's assassination. Hezbollah made presidents and governments in Lebanon. It kept the presidential palace vacant for two-and-half years so that it would be able to elect Michel Aoun as president, putting him at odds with Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri from day one of his term. Can a party that used to change Assad's decisions and that sent advisers to Yemen and Iraq return to the Lebanese map without its rockets? Will the party assume the responsibility for the isolation that will befall Lebanon if it insists on hanging on to its arsenal or if it sparks a new Israeli war on Lebanon? The party has lost its strong leader, its influence in Syria, and its ability to fight Israel, so what role does its arsenal have left to play? Can it take the decision to lay down its arms?
Al Arabiya
6 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
The illusion of deterrence: Lebanon's crisis is no longer an Israeli one
Lebanon stands at a critical juncture. On the eve of a landmark cabinet session expected to address the disarmament of Hezbollah – an issue long avoided by the Lebanese political class – the US government officially delivered its final proposal outlining a roadmap for resolving the country's security crisis. President Joseph Aoun and Speaker Nabih Berri were notified by the Trump administration that the document is final and non-negotiable, in stark contrast to previous drafts that had been left open for discussion. For all the latest headlines follow our Google News channel online or via the app. This document offers a phased plan for Hezbollah's disarmament – beginning with its heavy weapons, followed by drones and unmanned aerial systems, and ending with individual arms. It also calls for the accelerated demarcation of Lebanon's borders with Syria and Israel, a cessation of Israeli strikes, Israeli withdrawal from remaining occupied points in southern Lebanon, and the release of Lebanese detainees. In return, the United States and its international partners pledge robust support for Lebanon's reconstruction and economic recovery – contingent upon full compliance with these demands. To assuage Lebanese sensitivities, key phrases have been softened. 'Internationally recognized borders' was replaced with 'international borders,' and the matter of Shebaa Farms was deferred to a later phase of negotiations. But the overarching tone remains unequivocal: Washington expects a definitive answer. With the cabinet meeting fast approaching, Lebanon is being asked to shed its habitual ambiguity and finally take a stand. For a state long paralyzed by fear and clientelism, the moment of reckoning has arrived. The timing could not be more symbolic – or more damning. The cabinet is set to meet one day after the fourth anniversary of the Beirut port explosion, a national tragedy for which Hezbollah bears political, logistical, and criminal responsibility. It is a crime that destroyed half the capital, killed hundreds, and injured thousands. And yet, Hezbollah has done everything in its power to obstruct justice, intimidate judges, and derail the investigation. President Aoun's legacy – if it is to carry any credibility – hinges not only on his ability to confront and disarm Iran's militia, but also on his refusal to allow the port blast to be buried under the lie of mere negligence. There can be no reconciliation without accountability. If Hezbollah and the Amal Movement once again resort to creative evasions – boycotting the session, obstructing quorum, or diluting the language of any final resolution – they will only confirm the core argument of this moment: That the militia state remains unwilling to accept the authority of the republic, and that its leadership is committed to maintaining Lebanon as a hostage rather than as a sovereign nation. Such maneuvers will not buy time – they will accelerate collapse. The key question remains: Is Lebanon's political class willing to govern – or will it continue to outsource sovereignty to a militia? For decades, Hezbollah has operated beyond the authority of the Lebanese state, unaccountable to its institutions, immune from criticism, and increasingly divorced from the national interest. Its narrative of 'resistance' has become a threadbare excuse for political domination, economic capture, and social coercion. Most tellingly, its own leaders, including its uninspiring Secretary- General Naim Qassem, who now insists that disarmament is a 'red line,' and that any local initiative to discuss it amounts to treason. Such statements should provoke national outrage. They confirm what many have long suspected: Hezbollah is not merely unwilling to relinquish its weapons – it is unwilling to acknowledge the authority of the very state it claims to protect. Even United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which Hezbollah once invoked to halt Israeli bombardment, is now dismissed as a threat to its hegemony. Israel's recent strikes across southern Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley were not timed to coincide with political developments in Beirut. They are part of a broader, methodical campaign to degrade Hezbollah's military infrastructure. More significantly, they reflect a shift in regional perception: Hezbollah is no longer seen as an organic Lebanese actor, but as an Iranian asset whose wars do not rally national unity. What we are witnessing is not the prelude to a full-scale war, but the unraveling of a political-military entity whose bluff has been called. Despite its rhetoric, Hezbollah was unprepared for the current confrontation. Its weapons were never about defending Lebanon – they were about dominating it. When faced with a genuine military threat, Hezbollah's posture collapsed. Lebanon can no longer pretend to be a sovereign republic while allowing an unaccountable militia to hold a monopoly over force. No state can claim legitimacy if it tolerates an armed group that invades its capital, silences its critics, derails investigations, and assassinates political opponents – including former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and activist Lokman Slim, and many others in between the two. Even in diplomacy, Hezbollah has failed to act as a national stakeholder. During the maritime demarcation negotiations with Israel, Hezbollah and its allies conceded more than was asked – only to later reframe the outcome as a 'resistance victory.' Behind their posturing lies a deeper truth: Hezbollah's power is ultimately guaranteed not by the Lebanese state, but by tacit American tolerance, as the Obama and the Biden administrations gave Iran and its proxies a mandate over Lebanon and the region. It is now up to President Aoun and his cabinet to end this deception. The president need not order a military operation – he must instead articulate, clearly and decisively, that only the state has the right to bear arms. Hezbollah's parallel military structure must end. This is not a call for internal conflict. It is a call to reestablish legal and constitutional order. Speaker Nabih Berri, too, must be held accountable. His repeated manipulation of the constitution to serve Hezbollah's interests has undermined the credibility of parliament. The legislature cannot serve as a haven for armed factions. It must represent the people – not their captors. Some claim Lebanon lacks the time, will, or strength to confront Hezbollah. But time has already run out. The international community is offering one final opportunity for Lebanon to reintegrate into the regional order and secure its future. The shift from Morgan Ortagus to Tom Barrack – and now back to Ortagus – is a signal that the window for compromise is closing. Hezbollah's arsenal no longer serves as a deterrent against Israel. It has become a liability, not only to Lebanon's sovereignty, but to its very survival. Hezbollah knows this. That's why it avoided direct escalation and now clings to threats of internal strife. Its resistance rhetoric has given way to the language of coercion. The Lebanese people – especially those in the south many of whom lost their loved ones and their homes – deserve more than the brittle calm of temporary ceasefires. They want lasting peace, rooted not in fear but in dignity, legality, and a shared national purpose. That peace is no longer a dream – it is an inevitability. Lebanon cannot afford to postpone an open, national conversation about its future – nor can it survive failing to do the right thing when the choice is finally placed on the table. The illusion of deterrence has shattered. It is time for Lebanon to choose statehood over submission – before the next opportunity becomes the final warning.
Saudi Gazette
7 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
Netanyahu asks Red Cross to help hostages in Gaza, as families warn against an ‘expanding war'
TEL AVIV — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Hamas of not wanting a ceasefire deal and requested that the International Red Cross bring food and medical care to hostages held in Gaza, after public fury ignited over propaganda videos showing two emaciated Israeli captives. Tens of thousands of protestors joined a rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening – some holding placards reading 'Stop the war' and 'Leave no one behind' – as they called for Netanyahu to strike a deal that would free the Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. Videos released by the militant groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad last week showed hostages Evyatar David and Rom Braslavski in a visibly fragile state – images that galvanized a forceful reaction both at home and abroad. On Sunday, the International Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied Territories said that it was 'appalled' by the videos and urged that the 'dire situation must come to an end.' Several world leaders also condemned the videos of the Israel hostages, with French President Emmanuel Macron describing them as 'unbearable' and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz saying the images 'show that Hamas should have no role in Gaza's future.' Netanyahu's office said on Sunday that the prime minister spoke with Julien Lerisson, the head of the Red Cross delegation in the region, to request 'his involvement in the immediate provision of food and medical care for the hostages.' The office also repeated Netanyahu's denial that starvation was rife in the enclave, despite a UN-backed food security agency's warning this week that 'the worst-case scenario of famine' is unfolding in Gaza. Hamas has said it is prepared to 'deal positively' with any Red Cross request to deliver food and medicine to hostages, but only on the condition that humanitarian corridors are opened up in Gaza. The militant group claims that the hostages' emaciated state is a reflection of worsening conditions in the strip. However, other hostages who have been freed in the past have similarly appeared gaunt and frail at the time of their release and described malnourishment while in captivity. Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas' military wing, al-Qassam Brigades, said this weekend that the group does not intentionally starve the hostages, and that they eat the same food that Hamas fighters and the general Gaza population eat. 'They will not receive any special privileges amid the crime of starvation and siege,' he added. A member of Hamas' political bureau, Izzat Al-Rashiq, described the images as 'the definitive response to all who deny the existence of famine in Gaza.' Malnutrition-related deaths in Gaza spiked in July, the latest sign of a worsening hunger crisis, the World Health Organization warned last week. The agency said the enclave's malnutrition rates reached 'alarming levels,' with over 5,000 children under five admitted for outpatient treatment of malnutrition in just the first two weeks of July. Gazans also face lethal danger when attempting to collect aid from distribution sites, where violent clashes can erupt. On Sunday, a shooting incident near an aid site in northern Gaza killed at least 13 people and left dozens wounded, according to the Emergency and Medical Services in Gaza. Allowing Red Cross access would be a shift for Hamas, which has previously opposed any access to the hostages by the humanitarian group. The ICRC, which has only facilitated previous releases of hostages throughout the war, said in March that it was 'hugely disappointing' to have not yet been able to visit any hostages so far, emphasizing that it was not for lack of trying. Recent ceasefire talks have borne little fruit, with Israeli and US negotiators recalled from negotiations last month. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff at the time blamed Hamas for poor coordination and 'lack of desire to reach a ceasefire,' saying the US would consider 'alternative options.' On Sunday, Netanyahu cited the latest images of Hamas captives as evidence of bad faith. 'When I see this, I understand exactly what Hamas wants. They don't want a deal. They want to break us with these horrifying videos, with the false horror propaganda they're spreading around the world,' he said. The Israeli leader is now 'pushing for the freeing of the hostages through military defeat (of Hamas),' one Israeli official told CNN on Sunday – a route that the hostages' families have repeatedly warned against. 'We are in discussions with the Americans. There is a growing understanding that Hamas is not interested in a deal,' the official said, adding that Netanyahu wants to combine the freeing of the hostages 'with the entry of humanitarian aid into areas outside the combat zones and, as much as possible, into areas not under Hamas control.' Steve Witkoff, the United States' Special Envoy to the Middle East, held a nearly three-hour meeting with the families of those still being held in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, telling them that the US' 'first priority' is getting the hostages back to Israel, the forum said. Fifty hostages remain in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive. CNN has reached out to Witkoff's team to confirm that he made these comments. As Israel's war in Gaza grinds on, it has faced increasing resistance from the Israeli public, whose frustration over the fates of the remaining hostages has intensified. According to polling released by the Israel Democracy Institute during a ceasefire period in March, over 70% of Israelis supported negotiating with Hamas for an end to the fighting and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in exchange for the release of the remaining hostages. Fifty hostages remain in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive. The hostages' families have repeatedly urged Netanyahu to strike a deal, warning that Red Cross assistance alone will not be enough, and that further expansion of the fighting in Gaza could endanger the remaining hostages' lives. 'Netanyahu is preparing the greatest deception of all. The repeated claims of freeing hostages through military victory are a lie and a public fraud,' Israel's Hostages and Missing Families Forum said in a statement on Sunday. The group also condemned Hamas, saying it 'cannot hide the fact that we are dealing with an evil terrorist organization that has been holding innocent people in impossible conditions for over 660 days.' Hamas publicly insists that it remains committed to hostage release talks – but only if conditions in Gaza improve first. The group recently stopped engaging in any discussions regarding a ceasefire or the release of hostages, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN last week. 'It is essential to improve the catastrophic humanitarian situation significantly and to obtain a written response from the enemy regarding our response,' Basem Naim, a senior Hamas political official, also told CNN. 'This is a condition to go back to negotiations.' — CNN
