On September 8, it was reported that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) had reinforced their deployment and activity in Nabatieh, against the backdrop of Israeli strikes in the city and its surrounding areas. Some of the forces identified were the Second Intervention Regiment (فوج التدخل الثاني) and the Engineering Regiment (فوج الهندسة).
According to Al Jadeed News, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri (leader of the Amal Movement, Hezbollah’s ally and partner in the fighting against Israel) discussed the deployment of the army in Nabatieh and the surrounding villages, in an attempt to “protect the city,” reinforce the legitimacy of the state, and uphold the principle of the state’s monopoly on arms.
The deployment also received a warm welcome from residents of Nabatieh. Footage from the area shows residents greeting Lebanese soldiers with flowers and throwing rice toward them as a gesture of welcome.
However, the deployment in Nabatieh is not an operation to disarm Hezbollah. Rather, it is a reinforcement of the military presence intended to contain the escalation and reduce Israeli strikes – not an effort to dismantle Hezbollah’s weapons and military infrastructure in the city.
And this is precisely what serves Hezbollah’s interests at this stage: having the Lebanese Army in Nabatieh- but not for the purpose of disarming it.
Do not expect to see the Lebanese Army going from house to house, searching for Hezbollah infrastructure and dismantling Hezbollah weapons.
The Lebanese Army arrives under the banner of the “state monopoly on arms,” yet it is not acting against Hezbollah’s weapons. Meanwhile, its very presence inside the city could restrict IDF activity- the only actor currently taking active measures to target and dismantle Hezbollah’s military capabilities.
Instead of the Lebanese state exerting pressure on Hezbollah to disarm and actually implementing the principle of the state’s monopoly on arms, the presence of its army could become a human shield for Hezbollah – a buffer that poses no threat to the organization’s capabilities but could constrain Israeli action against them.
As long as Lebanon does not dismantle the military threat posed by Hezbollah from its territory, it cannot expect the presence of its army to grant immunity to Hezbollah’s infrastructure. The responsibility for removing this threat lies first and foremost with the Lebanese state; it is not doing so. Therefore, Israel will continue to be required to do so.
