TEHRAN – In 2025, both internal and international pressures on Hezbollah’s disarmament have been greatly strengthened to the extent that Lebanese President Joseph Ounu officially expressed this demand.
On the surface, this plan is promoted under the guise of strengthening national sovereignty and centralizing national security. However, deeper inspections reveal far more strategic projects. It is to weaken the axis of resistance and pave the way for widening Western and Zionist interventions. Lebanon’s political, economic and social structure has become increasingly vulnerable due to the many challenges, due to Israel’s attacks and attacks on its territory, Said Hassan Nasrara and many Hezbollah commanders, numerous civilian martial arrogance, destruction of infrastructure, and the destruction of widepreadedion. Lebanon, like many other countries in the region, has not been affected by Israeli invasions. Foreign interventions, paralyzing financial crisis, and vulnerabilities in state institutions all contribute to this vulnerability. Accepting ambiguous and dangerous plans like Hezbollah’s disarmament could lead to a complete collapse of the country.
It is undeniable that Hezbollah’s role in deterrence since his victory in 2006. Since the 33-day war with Israel in 2006, Hezbollah has evolved into an undeniable regional influence military force. In that war, the group successfully halted the Western-equipped Israeli forces and imposed a new balance of power. Israel failed to break or ignore it. The conflict transformed Hezbollah from a militia to a key actor in Lebanon’s national security and regional dynamics, establishing it as a unique pillar of the country’s strategic deterrence architecture. Disarming Hezbollah at a time when Lebanon remains in a vulnerable state and Israel continues to threaten the very existence of the country in this region will eliminate the only robust deterrent that, through years of effort and sacrifice, ensures that Lebanon will no longer submit easily to Israeli attacks.
Historical precedents from Iraq, Libya and other Western Asian countries provide a modest warning. In Iraq since 2003, Paul Bremer’s decision to disband the army and disband non-state actors led to chaos and the country, allowing for the rise of ISIS, leading to practical collapse. Similarly, Libya entered an era of obstacles and instability following the collapse of Gaddafi and the dismantling of national security forces. Lebanon has sectarian power sharing, fragile financial dependence on the West, and institutional weaknesses, and is not equipped to withstand such a scenario. Disarming Hezbollah without a viable alternative only paves the way for foreign invasions, internal collapse and the unraveling of the country.
This disarmament project is not merely symbolic. It is a tool for structural fragmentation. Hezbollah’s call for disarmament involves a combined strategy of diplomacy, fiscal and military pressure. The US-led negotiation model includes prerequisites such as stopping Israel’s attacks, Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon, and in return, Hezbollah’s surrender of weapons. However, historical experiences teach us that negotiations under obsession rarely lead to fair compromises.
The media and political campaigns that justify this agenda must also be scrutinized. The pressure from Washington, Tel Aviv and their Persian Gulf Arab allies is driven by a clear political goal of dominating Lebanon. The language used to frame this purpose (national sovereignty, peace, reform) is a rhetorical cover of actual purposes. It is an open space for dependence and fragmentation, eliminating resistance, neutralizing Lebanon’s top deterrent. The major challenge to this plan is that the Lebanese army cannot replace Hezbollah. Beyond limited resources and financial dependence, almost half of the Lebanese army is Shia, many of whom sympathize with Hezbollah. Serious attempts at disarmament can destroy the army itself and turn it into a volatile and ineffective political actor.
Furthermore, Hezbollah has consistently expressed his willingness to talk since 2005, without agreeing to abandon his weapons. They are even considering integration into the military.