The question of restricting armament to the hands of the Lebanese state has become the central political issue of President Joseph Aoun's term far more quickly than anyone anticipated. Aoun had been elected in early 2025 and in the wake of the Israeli war on Lebanon, which severely weakened Hezbollah and killed most of its leaders- Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah down through a large segment of its mid-level military and security commanders, in addition to cadres, most of whom were wounded in the walkie-talkie and pager explosions.
In his inaugural address before the Lebanese parliament, President Aoun pledged to ensure that decisions of war and peace would be made exclusively by the state. He also called for a dialogue around national security strategy for the country's security forces and army.
This position aligns with the position consistently reiterated by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who brings global political, academic, diplomatic, and judicial experience at the highest level. Salam insists that restricting arms to the state is first and foremost dictated by the Taif Agreement (approved by Lebanese parliamentarians in Saudi Arabia in 1989 and incorporated into the Lebanese constitution in 1990) and not a concession to Israeli disarmament demands.
The current problem has three sides: the negotiators are not the ones doing the fighting, those fighters are not negotiating, and both are facing a ruthless enemy that does not hesitate to violate every agreement it signs. Israel continues to violate Lebanese sovereignty and relentlessly target civilians, journalists, and medical, emergency, and nursing personnel, with no regard for international law or basic norms.
Despite the ferocity of Israel's ongoing attacks, broad segments of Lebanese society are becoming increasingly convinced that Hezbollah's second "support war," which was launched only weeks ago, was a response to the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Many now ask what it means for Lebanon to tie its fate to Iran: a country that did not even retaliate to the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah himself and only entered the war once it came under direct American-Israeli bombardment.
If this question is legitimate in both form and substance, it begs the question of what drives the vicious political and media campaign against the president over his decision to pursue direct negotiations with Israel with the aim of ending the war and opening a new phase whose central aim is to close the chapter in which Lebanon pays the price for others' conflicts and move instead toward an era of stability.
Some of those opposed to the negotiations go so far as to accuse the Lebanese president of treachery- even as Iran itself is negotiating with the United States, the very power that, in cooperation with Israel, subjected it to unprecedented bombardment and assassinated its senior leaders. None of that prevented Tehran from sitting at the negotiating table in search of a lasting solution.
Lebanon has no interest in linking its negotiation track to Iran's. While Tehran’s occasional statements suggesting it seeks a ceasefire in Lebanon in the media statements assure Hezbollah's constituency, Lebanon has been living with the consequences of "linked tracks" under Syrian tutelage for decades. Damascus repeatedly used the Lebanese card to bolster its own negotiating position while showing no real concern for Lebanon whenever talks over the Golan Heights moved forward.
Lebanon cannot afford additional costs or manufactured wars that repeatedly hand Israel pretexts to assault, destroy, and exact revenge on a country with a rich experience of pluralism, fragile democracy, and diversity. Lebanon presents an antithesis to Israel, which presents itself as the Middle East's only democracy, claiming to respect all religions and guarantee freedom of worship. Recent events in the churches of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, at Al-Aqsa Mosque and across the West Bank, and the attacks on mosques, churches, and shrines in southern Lebanon, flatly negate those claims.
Finally, if negotiation is indeed Lebanon's best option, then perhaps some of the voices rushing toward normalization and promoting a peace agreement with Israel should temper their enthusiasm. They should not look away from the daily assaults Lebanon endures and justify Israel’s actions, absolving it entirely.
