Hezbollah’s Arsenal Under International Scrutiny, But This Isn’t Enough

International pressure is mounting on Hezbollah’s vast weapons arsenal, with American diplomacy taking center stage. U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack, whose Christian Lebanese grandparents emigrated to the United States from Lebanon, has reportedly presented a six-page “roadmap” for Lebanon’s security. 

This plan outlines three key phases: voluntary disarmament of weapons depots in civilian areas and their handover to the Lebanese Army, government control regularization at the Syrian border, and legislation prohibiting non-state actors from holding weapons. 

In return, the U.S. promises $2.5 billion in emergency aid for infrastructure, removal of personal sanctions on former ministers, and a new debt framework with the International Monetary Fund. However, Barrack also warned that without a clear response by November, a “political starvation plan” would commence, withdrawing support for Lebanon in international forums. Barrack explicitly called the November ceasefire in Lebanon “a total failure,” citing continued Israeli bombing and Hezbollah’s violations, according to a July 7 report by the New York Times. 

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun reiterates his commitment to state-only weapons, emphasizing disarmament through dialogue, not force, to prevent internal conflict. He calls for U.S. pressure on Israel to withdraw from southern outposts, release Lebanese prisoners, and cease violations, seeing these as facilitators for disarmament. Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam claims the Lebanese Army has dismantled over 500 Hezbollah sites south of the Litani River, Lebanon, affirming commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 but stressing that security remains elusive while Israel occupies territory and conducts strikes in Lebanon. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, allied with Hezbollah, remains cautious, asserting that “no one accepts Hezbollah’s disarmament,” even as Hezbollah is reportedly preparing its response to Barrack’s demands.

Hezbollah maintains a dual narrative: publicly, it dismisses talks due to Israel’s limited presence in southern Lebanon, while senior sources acknowledge internal discussions on “parameters for re-evaluating weapon deployment.” Their demands include guarantees against military exploitation of disarmament, the departure of Israel from southern hills, and other demands. Iran, meanwhile, reportedly expresses sharp dissatisfaction with any move by Hezbollah to disarm, though it currently lacks the practical ability to prevent it.

From our perspective at the Alma Center, any talk of Hezbollah voluntarily disarming is unrealistic. This scenario will likely lead to Hezbollah becoming part of the Lebanese Army, but informally maintaining its organizational structure and effectively co-opting the army – a highly dangerous outcome seen previously in Syria and Iraq. No one in Lebanon wants a civil war, so this perilous ‘compromise’ becomes more realistic.

The true opportunity for change lies in dismantling Hezbollah’s social base. This requires two key actions: the Lebanese state must step in to provide the civilian services Hezbollah currently offers (healthcare, education, fuel, supermarkets), and simultaneously, Hezbollah’s ability to provide these services must be crippled by cutting off its funding and infrastructure. This means aggressively targeting its financial channels, including banks, and shutting down its social platforms like schools, student organizations, and gas stations. As a Hezbollah municipal election video explicitly demonstrated, these services are their currency for popular support. Severing this link, rather than merely seizing weapons, is the only way to genuinely neutralize Hezbollah and avert a civil war.