Lebanon is experiencing political and security confusion following the initiation of a key clause in the ceasefire agreement, which mandates the disarmament of illegal weapons and the state’s exclusive control over arms within its territory. Although the agreement was formally approved last October and November, with both government and presidential statements affirming commitment to it, its implementation has clashed with the contradictions and divisions of reality, whether politically among local forces or through intersecting interests and conflicting visions. The result has been a vacuum between decision and execution.
In this context, U.S. envoy to the Middle East, Tom Barrack, last Saturday called on Lebanon to engage in direct negotiations with Israel amid escalating border tensions and intensified Israeli airstrikes on Hezbollah positions in the south, nearly a year after the ceasefire agreement.
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the “Manama Dialogue” organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Bahrain, Barrack stated: “Dialogue must be with Israel, only with Israel, and Israel is ready. Take that path to Israel and have a conversation, it will not hurt.”
The American envoy explained that Lebanese leaders are “understandably anxious” about direct talks because of the “dangerous environment” in the country, but stressed that Washington “will assist and pressure Israel to be reasonable if Lebanon decides to move forward.”
He added that the United States believes Lebanon is in a deep crisis, reflecting Washington’s frustration with what it views as the “paralysis of the Lebanese government” in dealing with Hezbollah’s weapons.
Barrack further remarked: “It is the only country in the region that has not aligned itself with the new transformations in the Middle East.” He added: “The state is Hezbollah,” pointing out that the Iran-backed group provides its supporters and fighters with what the Lebanese state cannot, in a country plagued by chronic deficiencies in basic services such as electricity and water.
Barrack emphasized that the United States will not intervene in regional conflicts but will support its ally Israel if it escalates its operations against Lebanon. He concluded by urging Lebanon’s leadership to move faster to contain Hezbollah’s weapons, calling on the Lebanese to “join the path of negotiations and secure their borders.”
Read also: Gaza Ceasefire at Risk as Strikes and Delays Test Fragile Deal
The Illusion of Power
Lebanese writer Hanna Saleh told +963 that former Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, during the “support war,” remained convinced that “Israel will not expand the war into Lebanon.” But according to Saleh, this conviction “revealed Hezbollah’s and Iran’s inability to grasp the major shift in Israel’s military strategy after October 7.”
Today, the party appears, through its positions and statements, “reassured by Western and Israeli reports that exaggerate its strength and image, believing its own propaganda meant to deceive its domestic base.”
Saleh notes that this false confidence manifests as a comfortable reliance on the notion that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rhetoric is mere political intimidation and that war is unlikely. Secretary-General of Hezbollah Naim Qassem has said that “intimidation will not change our stance on resistance and steadfastness,” without clarifying what “steadfastness” means or what form of “resistance” can exist amid current paralysis. He then added, “We are not advocates of surrender or defeat,” appealing emotionally to his audience with themes of “dignity and pride,” before insisting that “Israel cannot continue its occupation.”
In reality, following the “distraction” and “support” wars, Israel has effectively returned to the south, where Lebanon now witnesses repeated incursions, indiscriminate killings, and direct targeting of Hezbollah operatives amid complete incapacity to respond. Israeli drones continue to fly from the skies of the south to the Bekaa Valley and Beirut, even above the Grand Serail and Baabda Palace, illustrating a new security reality in which the land’s owner awaits the enemy’s approval to harvest his olives.
Saleh stresses that illegal arms have drawn Israel back into Lebanon after destroying the state and its institutions. The country’s collapse, he argues, would not have occurred without the complicity of the political class allied with Hezbollah within the system of corruption and plunder.
While discussions of accountability and responsibility grow, Saleh asserts that no priority outweighs the need to confine weapons to the Lebanese state, an obligation Hezbollah itself endorsed in the recent ceasefire agreement.
He adds that Lebanon, in seeking to liberate its land, has only one responsible option: a diplomatic path grounded in a clear decision to exit the war and align with the Arab and international community around the two-state solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. This approach now enjoys growing recognition in both East and West, alongside a gradual American shift toward support for it.
Saleh concludes that this course is entirely incompatible with maintaining the current status quo, an inactive state, a rhetorical resistance, and weapons that have lost their meaning, because any attempt to preserve the current conditions only prolongs the occupation and extends instability.
He notes that the President of the Republic has announced that Lebanon awaits an American response to its negotiation initiative, but so far, there are no signs of Israeli engagement, despite its agreement to the U.S. request to expand the “mechanism committee” to include political figures, a step toward genuine state-building through disarming illegal groups, applying the constitution and the Taif Agreement, and implementing reforms to end the mafia-like grip controlling the nation’s destiny.
Meanwhile, regional threats are intensifying, as Israel shows growing signs that Hezbollah continues restructuring its military apparatus beyond state authority, opening the door to new “fluid” scenarios on Lebanon’s stage.
Options for the Next Phase
Major General Sayed Ghoneim outlined to +963 several possible scenarios for Hezbollah’s next phase, analyzing both military and political dynamics amid current regional tensions.
According to Ghoneim, Hezbollah faces three direct military scenarios related to war and escalation: “First, the party could voluntarily hand over its weapons to the Lebanese state, a strategic concession that would restore state authority and rebuild international trust, though this remains unlikely in the near term. Second, Hezbollah could seek to buy time through political and media maneuvering, retaining its arsenal while waiting for a shift in power dynamics or new regional settlements. Third, it could engage in a new confrontation with Israel to reject defeat and redefine its combat doctrine in what it calls ‘restoring deterrence,’ despite the grave risks this would pose to all of Lebanon.”
Politically and security-wise, Ghoneim identifies four intertwined paths that could shape the future relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese state: “The first is the continuation of the status quo with limited adjustments, in which the party retains its weapons and influence in exchange for superficial concessions, with dialogue on disarmament remaining rhetorical. This would preserve a fragile balance between the state and the party, leaving room for escalation. The second path is gradual integration into the state, transforming Hezbollah into a political actor rather than a military one, accepting reduced armed influence in return for political legitimacy and reconstruction support. This requires a strong state, regional stability, and external guarantees but conflicts with the party’s ideological identity as a ‘resistance movement’ and its continued dependence on Iranian backing.”
He continues: “The third path is renewed conflict and escalation if a broad confrontation erupts between Hezbollah and Israel or other regional actors, potentially leading to domestic collapse, economic and humanitarian deterioration, and chaos if the state attempts to forcibly disarm the party. The fourth path involves partial or controlled disarmament, with Hezbollah surrendering part of its arsenal or freezing its expansion under a regional or international agreement in exchange for political and economic guarantees, including reconstruction aid and strengthening the Lebanese army.”
Ghoneim concludes that the most likely short-term outcome is a hybrid between the first and fourth scenarios, a continuation of the status quo with limited, negotiated concessions, without comprehensive disarmament or a major war.
Given Lebanon’s internal hardships and rising regional and international pressures, the military option is costly and fraught with risks, while partial settlements and political maneuvering appear more practical under current circumstances.
Analyzing both regional and international positions, it becomes evident that Lebanon must recognize the danger of sliding into another confrontation, which requires a unified stance from all state authorities to prevent escalation and protect both the state and society.
Read also: The Middle East After the Gaza War: A Region Without a Centre.
Military Warning
Brigadier General Khaled Hamade told +963 that it is essential to review all steps taken by the Lebanese state, noting that the previous government approved the agreement signed on Lebanon’s behalf by Speaker Nabih Berri.
The Lebanese expert explained that the agreement explicitly commits the Lebanese state to ensuring that no illegal weapons exist anywhere in the country and that all arms remain under legitimate security institutions.
After the formation of the new government and the election of a president, both the inaugural address and the ministerial statement reaffirmed full adherence to the agreement’s provisions, and the army leadership developed a field plan for its implementation.
Hamade pointed out that subsequent political divergence emerged as Hezbollah, under clear Iranian influence, clung to its weapons, leading to an internal political split: one camp, including the president, Speaker Berri, and Hezbollah opposing disarmament, and another demanding full enforcement of the decision.
This division, he said, plunged Lebanon’s political process into confusion, with government decisions on one side and actual implementation on the ground on the other. The army’s plan stipulated seizing weapons south of the Litani River and preventing their movement northward.
He confirmed that the implementation delay stems from entangled political interests, as this political axis seeks to circumvent the decision despite looming dangers and ongoing Arab and international mediation urging Lebanon daily to avoid descending into the unknown.
Some parties, Hamade added, periodically brandish threats such as civil war or claim that forced disarmament would undermine internal stability, arguments used to justify keeping weapons beyond state control.
He emphasized that an overwhelming Lebanese majority, both in public opinion and politically, demands the resolution of the illegal weapons issue and their surrender to the Lebanese state, rejecting the continuation of any independent military structure within the country. This, he asserted, is a purely national demand, not merely a response to foreign pressure or external deals.
Hamade warned that the Israeli threat is extremely serious, suggesting that the Gaza model could be replicated in Lebanon through excessive force and large-scale destruction to compel the state to enforce the agreement.
He concluded that field indicators, political statements, and repeated mediation efforts all confirm the gravity of the coming phase, both politically and security-wise. “Israel appears determined on this issue,” Hamade said, “and Lebanon has no choice but to fully uphold its international commitments, regardless of the challenges or sacrifices. The country cannot risk its future for the sake of retaining Hezbollah’s weapons, whether to exploit them in upcoming elections or to form new political blocs. Lebanon is entering a highly dangerous stage, and full compliance with international obligations is its only way forward; otherwise, the nation faces an open-ended escalation whose scope and timing remain unknown.”
