by Al-Fassel | 2026-02-26

Hizbullah's continued refusal to disarm has intensified debate over state authority and Lebanon's fragile political order.

The Iranian Regime-backed movement, which operates both as a political party and armed group, maintains a military force independent of the Lebanese state.

Lebanese officials and international actors have long called for all militias to relinquish weapons and place arms under exclusive state control.

Those appeals cite the 1989 Taif Agreement, which ended Lebanon's civil war and mandated the disbanding of militias.

Disarmament dispute deepens political divisions

Hizbullah leaders have repeatedly rejected calls to surrender their weapons, arguing their arsenal is necessary to deter Israel.

The group has described proposals to disarm as misguided, insisting its military wing protects Lebanon from external threats.

Critics counter that maintaining an armed force outside state control undermines national sovereignty and weakens public institutions.

Lebanon's government has struggled for years with political paralysis, economic collapse and competing centers of power.

Analysts say Hizbullah's military autonomy complicates efforts to strengthen the authority of the Lebanese Armed Forces.

The presence of a powerful nonstate arsenal also fuels divisions among Lebanon's sectarian factions and political blocs.

Opponents argue that unified governance requires a single authority over decisions of war and peace.

Supporters of disarmament contend that exclusive state control of weapons is essential for long-term stability.

Regional tensions and broader security risks

Hizbullah's military posture has repeatedly drawn Lebanon into confrontations linked to its conflict with Israel.

Cross-border exchanges along the southern frontier have heightened fears of wider escalation during periods of regional crisis.

The group's backing from the Iranian regime has further entwined Lebanon in broader geopolitical rivalries.

Western governments designate Hizbullah, in whole or in part, as a terrorist organization, increasing diplomatic strain.

Within Lebanon, critics warn that continued militarization discourages foreign investment and complicates economic recovery efforts.

The country remains mired in one of the world's worst economic crises since 2019, according to the World Bank.

Political reform advocates argue that restoring confidence requires transparent institutions and clear state authority over arms.

They say parallel military structures risk undermining Lebanon's sovereignty and its ability to chart an independent course.

Hizbullah officials maintain their weapons are defensive and nonnegotiable under current regional conditions.

The standoff leaves Lebanon navigating internal divisions while confronting persistent economic hardship and external security pressures.