
Why Lebanon's fragile state hinges on Hezbollah's next move
Earlier this month, Tom Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy for Syria, telegraphed Washington's growing impatience with the status quo in Lebanon in remarks to journalists following his visit to Beirut. He described Hezbollah's disarmament as an essential condition for the renewal of international financial aid and long-term political stability in Lebanon.
As part of a proposal presented to Lebanese officials, the US offered support for Lebanon's economic reform efforts in exchange for Hezbollah's complete disarmament, Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, and the release of Lebanese detainees held by Israel.
'If Lebanon doesn't hurry up and get in line, everyone around them will,' Barrack said. He acknowledged what he described as a 'spectacular' response from Beirut in a short time, but criticized the Lebanese political system's ingrained culture of 'delay, detour, and deflect,' saying time was running out for the country to adapt to a fast-changing regional order.
But disarming Hezbollah is far from straightforward. Despite suffering significant losses last year during its war with Israel, including the death of longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah and the destruction of much of its military infrastructure, Hezbollah has shown no willingness to give up its arms.
The group's new leader, Sheikh Naim Qassem, reiterated that stance in a video address on July 19. 'We will not surrender or give up to Israel; Israel will not take our weapons away from us,' he said.
According to him, any disarmament would be discussed only as part of a national defense strategy determined internally by Lebanon, and only after a complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.
That position is tied to continued Israeli airstrikes, including recent attacks in the south that killed two individuals on July 20, as per local media reports.
Hezbollah cites these violations, along with Israel's continued occupation of five positions seized after the November 2024 ceasefire, as justification for retaining its arms.
Although the group claims to have handed over 190 of its 265 southern military positions to the Lebanese army, it continues to maintain a significant arsenal in the region and in other strongholds.
Hezbollah emerged as Lebanon's most powerful military force and dominant political actor in the post-civil war era, representing a significant portion of the Shiite population alongside the Amal party. Together, the two groups hold all the 27 Shiite seats in the 128-member parliament.
Analysts say that Hezbollah's ideological foundation has long rested on armed resistance, so shifting toward civilian politics would require not only strategic recalculation but also a new political message capable of sustaining its popular base.
'For decades, the party has emphasized armed resistance against Israel as central to its appeal,' said David Wood, senior analyst on Lebanon at the International Crisis Group (ICG).
'If Hezbollah wants to transition into a normal political party, it will need to craft another electoral narrative based around how it can improve the socio-economic fortunes of its constituents.'
Such a transformation is not without precedent. Other armed movements in the region, such as the Palestinian Fatah in earlier decades, have evolved into political organizations. However, the Lebanese context is unique in many ways. Years of economic collapse, institutional paralysis and political gridlock have left the state too weak to assert its authority.
The November 2024 ceasefire, brokered by the US and France, was intended to revive the terms of UN Resolution 1701, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory, a halt to Hezbollah's military operations near the southern border, and full control of arms by the Lebanese state. But little progress has been made.
Bilal Saab, associate fellow in the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, expressed doubt over Hezbollah's ability to function effectively as a conventional political party. He pointed to signs of waning support in southern Lebanon and other Hezbollah strongholds.
The group's military losses, the destruction of southern villages, and the economic suffering in Hezbollah-controlled areas are undermining its grassroots support, Saab told Arab News. 'It is therefore unclear whether an unarmed Hezbollah could compete effectively in free elections, within Lebanon's complex political system.'
He said the obstacles ahead of the government are political willingness and 'exaggerated' fears of sectarian violence. The new leaders, he said, 'must recognize that the chances of sectarian tensions are higher with the status quo unchanged.'
According to Saab, lack of serious action to address the issue of Hezbollah's arms would prompt Israel to continue its attacks and cause more damage and human casualties. 'If that happens, war-weary and economically dispossessed Lebanese could blame Hezbollah for causing even more death and destruction. This would in turn increase the risk of sectarian violence and people taking up arms against Hezbollah and its supporters,' he said.
For Lebanon's new leadership under President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, the challenge is to preserve national stability while dealing with an increasingly polarized domestic landscape and pressure from powerful external actors.
Though both leaders have reiterated their commitment to imposing a state monopoly on arms, they have insisted that any progress depends on Israel's complete withdrawal from Lebanese territory and an end to violations of Lebanese sovereignty.
While Barrack's proposal received praise for its ambition, its feasibility depends on wider geopolitical considerations. Paul Salem, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, believes that Iran, Hezbollah's principal backer, will have the final say.
'The key decision of disarming Hezbollah would have to be made in Iran, the group's main backer, not in Lebanon,' he told Arab News. 'For the time being, it is clear that Tehran is encouraging Hezbollah to drag its feet and not to hand over all its arms and I think that will remain the case.'
Salem emphasized the need for a coordinated domestic and international effort to encourage Hezbollah's transition into a political entity. This, he said, would require guarantees from the US, a defined role for the LAF, and political assurances from the Arab Gulf states.
'Hezbollah, at a minimum, would need assurances about Israel's withdrawal and protection of its operatives in Lebanon, which would have to come from the US, as well reassurances from Gulf countries of aid for reconstruction of the war-ravaged areas,' Salem said.
'They would want some of that money to come through their auspices so they could benefit politically.'
The World Bank has estimated the cost of Lebanon's reconstruction at $11 billion. US and Gulf officials have indicated that significant portions of that aid will only be unlocked if Hezbollah agrees to disarm.
The issue of integrating Hezbollah supporters into Lebanon's broader political and economic fabric is also paramount. Wood emphasized that the process of disarming Hezbollah should come with assurances that the Shiite community would remain part of the nation-building process in a country long paralyzed by factional politics.
'Lebanon's leaders must think very carefully about how to fully integrate Hezbollah's supporters into the country's future, or else they risk creating dangerous fissures in Lebanese society,' the ICG's Wood said.
Despite mounting pressure, few expect a quick resolution. Reports suggest Hezbollah is conducting a strategic review of its military posture, exploring possible scenarios but delaying concrete action. 'Hezbollah is taking a 'wait and see' approach for now,' Wood said. 'Perhaps it wants to know if regional circumstances might improve for it before seriously entertaining the idea of surrendering its military wing.'
Meanwhile, the Lebanese army has consolidated control over Rafik Hariri International Airport and large parts of the south, improving state authority and border security. A successful disarmament, officials argue, would boost the credibility of Lebanon's institutions and the case for the state's monopoly on force.
The Middle East Institute's Salem cautioned that Hezbollah is unlikely to fully relinquish its arms without assurances that go beyond Lebanese borders. If anything, he said, the disarmament would reduce sectarian tensions 'with the Sunnis, Christians, Druze and other communities that have been afraid of Hezbollah's arms.'
The potential rewards for Lebanon are clearly substantial. Hezbollah's disarmament would enable Lebanon to form new alliances with regional and global partners. The disarmament process could also unlock vital economic assistance, helping the country recover from years of political paralysis, financial crisis and social unrest.
However, Lebanon's leadership remains caught between the demands of the international community and the compulsions of domestic sectarian politics. For now, a delicate balance holds. But as pressure builds, time may be running out for Lebanon's politicians to chart the country's future — before others do it for them.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
US and EU strike deal with 15 percent tariff to avert trade war
TURNBERRY, Scotland: The US struck a framework trade agreement with the European Union on Sunday, imposing a 15 percent import tariff on most EU goods — half the threatened rate — and averting a bigger trade war between the two allies that account for almost a third of global trade. US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal at Trump's luxury golf course in western Scotland after an hour-long meeting that pushed the hard-fought deal over the line. 'I think this is the biggest deal ever made,' Trump told reporters, lauding EU plans to invest some $600 billion in the United States and dramatically increase its purchases of US energy and military equipment. Trump said the deal, which tops a $550 billion deal signed with Japan last week, would expand ties between the trans-Atlantic powers after years of what he called unfair treatment of US exporters. Von der Leyen, describing Trump as a tough negotiator, said the 15 percent tariff applied 'across the board,' later telling reporters it was 'the best we could get.' 'We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability,' she said. The deal, which Trump said calls for $750 billion of EU purchases of US energy in coming years and 'hundreds of billions of dollars' of arms purchases, likely spells good news for a host of EU companies, including Airbus, Mercedes-Benz and Novo Nordisk, if all the details hold. The baseline 15 percent tariff will still be seen by many in Europe as too high, compared with Europe's initial hopes to secure a zero-for-zero tariff deal, though it is better than the threatened 30 percent rate. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal, saying it averted a trade conflict that would have hit Germany's export-driven economy and its large auto sector hard. German carmakers, VW, Mercedes and BMW were some of the hardest hit by the 27.5 percent US tariff on car and parts imports now in place. But Bernd Lange, the German Social Democrat who heads the European Parliament's trade committee, said the tariffs were imbalanced and the hefty EU investment earmarked for the US would likely come at the bloc's own expense. Trump retains the ability to increase the tariffs in the future if European countries do not live up to their investment commitments, a senior US administration official told reporters on Sunday evening. The euro rose around 0.2 percent against the dollar, sterling and yen within an hour of the deal's being announced. Mirror of Japan deal The deal mirrors key parts of the framework accord reached by the US with Japan, but like that deal, it leaves many questions open, including tariff rates on spirits, a highly charged topic for many on both sides of the Atlantic. Carsten Nickel, deputy director of research at Teneo, said it was 'merely a high-level, political agreement' that could not replace a carefully hammered out trade deal: 'This, in turn, creates the risk of different interpretations along the way, as seen immediately after the conclusion of the US-Japan deal.' 'We are agreeing that the tariff ... for automobiles and everything else will be a straight-across tariff of 15 percent,' Trump said, but he quickly added that a 50 percent US tariff on steel and aluminum will remain in place. Von der Leyen said that tariff would be cut and replaced with a quota system. Von der Leyen said the rate also applied to semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, and there would be no tariffs from either side on aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, certain generic drugs, semiconductor equipment, some agricultural products, natural resources and critical raw materials. Trump initially appeared to suggest pharmaceuticals would not be covered, but a senior administration official later confirmed to reporters that the tariff deal applied to pharmaceuticals. Officials also said EU leaders had accepted that the US would keep its 50 percent steel and aluminum tariff in place while the two sides continue to discuss it. 'We will keep working to add more products to this list,' von der Leyen said, adding that spirits were still under discussion. The deal will be sold as a triumph for Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old US trade deficits, and has already reached similar framework accords with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has not hit its goal of '90 deals in 90 days.' He has periodically railed against the EU, saying it was 'formed to screw the United States' on trade. Arriving in Scotland, Trump said the EU wanted 'to make a deal very badly' and said, as he met von der Leyen, that Europe had been 'very unfair to the United States.' Trump has fumed for years about the US merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to US Census Bureau data. The EU points to the US surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Now he argues, his tariffs are bringing in 'hundreds of billions of dollars' of revenues for the US, while dismissing warnings from economists about the risk of inflation. On July 12, Trump threatened to apply a 30 percent tariff on imports from the EU starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major US trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of US goods in the event there was no deal, and Trump made good his 30 percent tariff threat. Some member states had also pushed for the bloc to use its most powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to target US services in the event of a no-deal.


Arab News
5 hours ago
- Arab News
Yemen's Houthis threaten to target ships linked to firms dealing with Israeli ports
Yemen's Houthis said on Sunday they would target any ships belonging to companies that do business with Israeli ports, regardless of their nationalities, as part of what they called the fourth phase of their military operations against Israel. In a televised statement, the Houthis' military spokesperson warned that ships would be attacked if companies ignored their warnings, regardless of their destination. 'The Yemeni Armed Forces call on all countries, if they want to avoid this escalation, to pressure the enemy to halt its aggression and lift the blockade on the Gaza Strip,' he added. Since Israel's war in Gaza began in October 2023, the Iran-aligned Houthis have been attacking ships they deem as bound or linked to Israel in what they say are acts of solidarity with Palestinians. In May, the US announced a surprise deal with the Houthis where it agreed to stop a bombing campaign against them in return for an end to shipping attacks, though the Houthis said the deal did not include sparing Israel.


Arab News
7 hours ago
- Arab News
Starmer has chance to right a historical wrong
Feverish debate over recent months has centered on whether the UK and France will recognize the state of Palestine. French President Emmanuel Macron said in February that recognition was 'not a taboo.' France and Saudi Arabia were due to hold a conference on the two-state solution in New York in June, but it was delayed by Israel's aggression against Iran. Instead, it is being held this week. But the UK's position has been far from clear? Will Prime Minister Keir Starmer agree to join in or will he delay? No country in the world has more of a history of grappling with the issue of Palestine than Britain. It was, after all, the author of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which it pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It did not mention a second state in that declaration. London had to grapple with this as the mandatory power all the way up to 1947, when it handed the issue over to the newly formed UN to resolve. In November of that year, the UN General Assembly voted for partition. The UK abstained on that resolution. However, its exit from Palestine was one of the low points of its Middle Eastern colonial era. It made little or no attempt to thwart the war that started even before its troops had left. Palestinians argue that, given all this, Britain has a particular historic responsibility toward Palestine. It should, many argue, be in the vanguard of pushing for the creation of that second state. It was not until the Venice Declaration of 1980 that European powers including the UK committed to acknowledging the Palestinian right to self-government. Even after that, it was many years before Britain had any formal relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Successive governments acted merely as backing vocalists to the US position on most aspects of the Palestinian question. With the Oslo Accords of 1993, the expectation that a peace process would lead to a Palestinian state grew. Britain and other donor states invested heavily in this option and aid to the fledgling Palestinian Authority grew as a result. It was all under the rubric that this would lead to a two-state solution, a secure Israel side by side with a state of Palestine based on the 1967 borders. The Palestinian leadership shifted its strategy after the Second Intifada to pushing for recognition. The UNGA approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in 2012 and the state of Palestine also started applying for membership of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court. In 2014, the UK government's position was outlined by then-Foreign Secretary William Hague, who said that London 'reserves the right to recognize a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.' On Oct. 13, 2014, a debate took place in the House of Commons with a votable motion: 'That this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.' The result of the vote was 274 to 12, a majority of 262 in favor of recognition. This was not binding on the government of the time but was a clear signal of parliamentary opinion. The low number of opponents to the motion indicated that few politicians were willing to oppose it in public. Significantly, this motion was backed by the leader of the Labour Party at the time, Ed Miliband. He said that recognition was 'right, just, fair and in line with the values' of his party. This tied Labour to supporting recognition. Contrary to widespread belief, it was not his pro-Palestinian successor, Jeremy Corbyn, who first made this move. Keir Starmer inherited this stance when he became Labour leader after the election defeat in 2019. But he made a significant change in Labour's position prior to the 2024 election. The manifesto committed the party to recognizing a Palestinian state, but only as part of a peace process. It stated: 'We are committed to recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.' The lack of clarity was deliberate. The decision on timing would be in the hands of the prime minister. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. Chris Doyle Debate endured as to whether these positions meant that Israel had veto power. Linking recognition to the state of a peace process, when the official Israel government policy was not to enter into negotiations, meant this was, in effect, exactly the case. Everything changed after Oct. 7, 2023. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. This has included a drive to recognize Palestine. In May 2024, Ireland, Norway and Spain recognized Palestine. Israel withdrew its ambassadors from those states. Larger European states such as the UK rejected the opportunity to join this move. This brings us to the present. Faced with Macron's announcement that France will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the focus returns to Starmer. He is facing considerable pressure to make the move immediately. Cabinet ministers are reported to have lobbied Starmer on recognition. They include Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Foreign Secretary David Lammy is also likely to have been backing this move. Now, 221 members of Parliament from nine parties have written to Starmer expressing their support for such a move. More than 130 of these are his own Labour MPs. Others are backing this letter even now. London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced his support, as did the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. The Financial Times quoted a senior Labour official as stating: 'The block on this is Keir himself as well as his senior advisers. They want to stay close to the US.' Public opinion is more supportive of recognition than opposed. Recent polls indicate a large number of 'don't knows' but, in a June survey, 64 percent of Labour voters said they believe that the UK should recognize Palestine. Only 2 percent of these voters opposed any recognition. This highlights that Starmer would have the backing of the base of his political party if he were to go ahead. What is holding Starmer back? The obvious answer is the US. Starmer is desperately keen to stay on constructive terms with American President Donald Trump. He will pick his battles with him — and it is unlikely one will be over the recognition of Palestine. There is also the issue of the hangover of the Corbyn era, when the Labour Party was swamped by accusations of antisemitism and lost considerable support within the British Jewish community. Starmer and his circle do not wish to relive that experience. Some argue that it is also Starmer's strongly held personal belief. Two arguments seem to hold sway in 10 Downing Street. Firstly, that recognition would not bring peace any closer. The second is the Israeli line that this rewards Hamas and its atrocities. The counterargument is that, far from rewarding Hamas, it is the Palestinian national movement that would be boosted. Is Starmer's position reversible? He has made U-turns on significant domestic policy, so it is possible. One argument is that if Starmer does not do this jointly with France, then in what circumstances would he do it? France would offer diplomatic cover and encourage other states to do the same. On the other hand, Starmer is in many ways already treating Palestine as a state in all but name. Back in May, he met with PA Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa in Downing Street with both flags on display as if Mustafa was head of a state government. Would UK recognition even matter? Israel seems to think so, as does the US. This explains their forthright condemnation of any state that recognizes Palestine. Supporters of the move believe that this matters too. It would mean official recognition — decades too late perhaps — that Palestinians do have a right to self-determination, that they have national rights and that, just like Israelis, they have a right to a state of their own. Acquiring statehood would also have legal benefits for Palestinians. Any UK recognition would be largely symbolic. However, if the UK were to recognize Palestine, it would be recognizing a state under occupation. That matters because it demonstrates that this 58-year-old Israeli occupation has to end — and the failure to do so must have consequences.