Eurasia Press & News
Lebanon’s powerful Hezbollah group stands at a pivotal juncture, forced to weigh its future amid unprecedented US pressure to relinquish its weapons following a costly war last year that eroded its longstanding dominance over Lebanon’s security decisions.
The Iran-backed militant group, which has dominated Lebanese politics and security since Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, now faces an existential choice that will determine not only its future but the battered country’s path forward.
Scarred by cyclical wars, economic freefall, and institutional decay, Lebanon’s infrastructure lies in ruins, its economy paralysed, and its social fabric strained by displacement and trauma.
The group’s influence has also historically extended beyond Lebanon’s borders, with significant operations in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen as part of Iran’s regional network, with its enmity toward Israel rooted in its founding during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon and defining its identity as an alleged “resistance” force.
US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack’s two short visits to Beirut on 19 June and 7 July have crystallised the stakes. His message was blunt: Hezbollah must surrender its weapons in a phased process or face the consequences of continued conflict with Israel.
According to Lebanese officials familiar with the discussions, the US proposal conveyed by Barrack follows a “step-by-step” approach. Heavy weapons would be surrendered first in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied hills, while drone capabilities would be dismantled in subsequent phases.
Border demarcation with Israel and Syria would proceed, according to the proposal, with American pressure to classify the disputed Shebaa Farms as Syrian territory, while strict financial reforms would close Hezbollah-related Al-Qard Al-Hasan microfinance institution and regulate cash flows in addition to implementing enhanced border controls.
This represents the most comprehensive disarmament proposal since UN Security Council Resolution 1701 ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.
Barrack’s warning carried weight: “No one will continue negotiating with Lebanon until next year. (US President Donald) Trump possesses exceptional courage and focus, but what he lacks is patience,” according to his remarks from the presidential palace during his latest visit to Lebanon.
Speaking during a briefing Monday on enhancing US-Turkish relations and developing ties with Syria, Barrack, who is also the US ambassador to Turkey, said that the weapons the US wants Hezbollah to relinquish are specifically those that threaten Israel. He described Hezbollah’s armed wing as “the terrorist organization causing problems”.
Hezbollah’s defiant response
Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem’s response during a religious event was unequivocal: “Do not ask us to abandon our weapons, for the resistance cannot continue without them… How do we confront Israel if it attacks us, and we have no missiles?”
He added: “We are ready for peace and building the country, and we are also ready for confrontation.”
However, security analysts suggest Hezbollah’s position has fundamentally weakened following recent conflicts, and its choices have become limited.
Regional expert and writer Wajdi Al-Areedi warns that “the party and Iran are no longer in the same position of strength as in previous years, and any potential war will effectively mean its end”.
This assessment comes after significant losses in Hezbollah’s leadership structure and military capabilities during the recent conflict.
In October 2023, Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in support of its ally Hamas in the ongoing Gaza war, and Israel launched retaliatory airstrikes in Lebanon.
The conflict escalated in late September 2024, when Israel launched an intense air campaign and ground invasion of southern Lebanon. The attacks wiped out most of Hezbollah’s leadership, including its secretary general Hassan Nasrallah and his closest aides.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has stated Beirut is determined to “confine weapons” to state hands but warns this must be handled “with deliberation and responsibility, because this subject is sensitive, critical, and fundamental to maintaining civil peace”.
The Lebanese government delivered its response to Washington’s proposal last week, which the US envoy Barrack said that he was “unbelievably satisfied” with it but has yet to deliver Washington’s final response.
Kassem Kassir, a political analyst close to Hezbollah circles, describes Hezbollah’s stance as “flexible and positive, provided its demands are met with clear guarantees”.
The group insists on Israel withdrawing first before any weapons handover, Kassir told The New Arab.
The precedent factor
The failure of previous disarmament efforts weighs heavily on current negotiations.
Former US envoy Amos Hochstein’s earlier proposal for Hezbollah’s withdrawal from south of the Litani River was rejected during the latest Hezbollah-Israel war, leading to the war’s escalation, leadership assassinations, and eventual ground invasion.
This sequence of events demonstrates the potential consequences if negotiations fail.
Barrack’s comments highlighted the delicate balance. While emphasising the US is “not imposing dictates,” he warned that disarming Hezbollah “could lead to civil war”.
This acknowledgement of internal Lebanese divisions underscores the complexity beyond the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic.
The uncertainty surrounding Hezbollah’s weapons also directly impacts Lebanon’s economic recovery prospects.
Al-Areedi noted that “many investors have refrained from launching new projects in Lebanon amid the ambiguity of the situation”. This affects international donors’ willingness to contribute to reconstruction efforts, creating a cycle where economic recovery depends on a political resolution.
“The next two weeks will be decisive for the American response to Lebanese positions,” he added.
Israel, meanwhile, has continued to launch airstrikes in southern Lebanon, claiming to target Hezbollah positions despite the November 2024 ceasefire. The truce agreement specified Hezbollah’s withdrawal from south of the Litani River and the dismantling of military structures there.
Israel maintains positions on five strategic hilltops in southern Lebanon, from which Beirut demands its withdrawal. This ongoing occupation complicates any potential disarmament negotiations, according to experts.
The crossroads ahead
Hezbollah faces three potential paths, according to regional experts.
The first is a negotiated disarmament and accepting a phased weapons surrender in exchange for Israeli withdrawal and reconstruction support. This would fundamentally alter the group’s identity but might preserve its political role.
The group also may continue to defy US proposals and maintain weapons while risking renewed conflict with a militarily superior Israel backed by US President Donald Trump’s administration or, lastly, seek middle ground through partial disarmament or weapons regulation while maintaining defensive capabilities, according to regional expert Al-Aridi.
Each option carries significant risks for Hezbollah’s future as a political and military organisation, as Syria’s changing dynamics following recent political developments add complexity to Hezbollah’s calculations.
The group’s traditional supply routes through Syria face uncertainty, while Iran’s regional influence has diminished. This represents a significant shift from the post-2011 period when Hezbollah operated with relative impunity across the region.
Charles Jabbour, a political writer, described in comments to The New Arab the current dynamic as “three forces: the United States and Israel, which insist on confining weapons to the state, versus Hezbollah, which rejects that, while the Lebanese state acts as a mediator”.
The coming weeks, which will see Barrack visiting Beirut for a third time to deliver Washington’s final stance, will determine whether Hezbollah chooses the path of political integration or maintains its “armed resistance” identity at potentially catastrophic cost, Jabbour said.
The stakes extend beyond Lebanon’s borders, he said, affecting regional stability and the broader Middle East balance of power. For Hezbollah, the choice is stark: evolve or face potential extinction.
