The illusion of deterrence: Lebanon's crisis is no longer an Israeli one

Al Arabiya

15 hours ago

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.