For decades, fear-mongering and conspiracy theories (that went so far they almost sparked a civil war) have been among key tools and tactics of Lebanon’s sectarian faction, especially in the face of attempts to curtail their influence. Nonetheless, the denial we see from Hezbollah, a party that walked right into a war that destroyed the country and broke the Lebanese people, is truly unprecedented, with its new trilogy becoming defeat, isolation, and collapse.
For the first time in the history of Lebanon, a political faction has dared to threaten that “there will be no life in Lebanon if the constitution is applied.” Hezbollah’s leader Naim Qassem escalated this threat to the country's survival with apocalyptic rhetoric: “Either our weapons, or a battle that mirrors the heroism of Karbala,” if the government insists on confining Hezbollah’s armament to the state forces.
This position has shattered the longstanding narrative that Hezbollah maintains its arms to defend the country.
Seventeen years ago, on May 5, 2008, the Lebanese government decided to replace Wafiq Shuqair (the head of airport security at the time and a Hezbollah ally) and prosecute those behind Hezbollah’s private telecommunications network, which it deemed to be in violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty that defrauded the state.
Hezbollah’s response did not take long. Its slogan became “the weapons are needed to defend the weapons.” Clashes erupted as a result on May 7, 2008. Beirut was invaded and debased, and unarmed civilians were killed as the state authorities did nothing to protect them. Hassan Nasrallah said it was a “glorious day,” and his allies cheered, paving the way for the Doha Agreement that awarded Hezbollah substantial gains, most notably the “blocking third,” which handed the minority the power to control the fate of the entire country.
The difference between the years 2008 and 2025 is not limited to just 17 years. Back then, Hezbollah was riding high after having convinced its community that it had achieved a “divine victory” over Israel in the 2006 war. Lebanon had been hostage to the “Axis of Resistance,” and the US had taken a "tolerant" approach with Iran’s regime.
Today’s Lebanon, however, is a totally different place. Ravaged by the banking collapse and the catastrophe of the “Support War,” Lebanon is part of a regional landscape that has also changed dramatically after the Axis of Resistance was shattered. Hezbollah knows this full well.
That is why Hezbollah has been opting for rhetoric escalation since the Lebanese government’s historic decision to confine armament to state bodies and institutions. Hezbollah’s unhinged accusations of treason and overt threats reflect a total disregard for the catastrophic implications its unruly behavior and words could have on its own community and the Lebanese people more broadly.
The cabinet’s historic decisions end a 56-year chapter that began with the 1969 Cairo Agreement, when Lebanon effectively surrendered its sovereignty and removed Hezbollah’s pursuit of hegemony from the political market- after this pursuit had enjoyed the final say on every significant question in Lebanon for two decades.
And while it is clear that an isolated Hezbollah does not have the capacity to drag Lebanon into a full-scale civil war, it can stir tensions and undermine security. These risks must be contained and confronted.
But the central question remains: why does Hezbollah insist on clinging to a narrative of denial to justify holding onto its weapons?
It claims that Israel requested the ceasefire- without explaining why it agreed to it and continues to comply with it. It insisted that it had managed to prevent Israel from advancing even as Israeli forces reached the Litani River 25 years after Lebanon’s “liberation”. The villages south of the Litani River have become essentially uninhabitable; entire frontline villages have been wiped off the map.
Hezbollah clings to denial as though it were a lifeline. Despite its refusal to acknowledge defeat, the government’s decisions have effectively declared the end of Hezbollah’s project of foreign dependency that was crushed in the “Support War.” It has lost its domestic protection, and after the Syrian earthquake (political, military, and demographic) its regional patron has grown distant and become focused on domestic priorities.
That is, its illegitimate weapons have proven powerless. They failed to deliver even the least ambitious of the promises it once made: “deterrence,” “balance of power,” and “protection.” Meanwhile, Israel has flipped its strategy on its head: moving from defense to offense, imposing buffer zones and scorched-earth along the entire northern frontier.
It is in this context that Naim Qassem makes threats and issues warnings, seeking to hinder any effort to rebuild the Lebanese state, which would serve the interests of the nation and its people, giving them the upper hand over a militia subordinate to foreign powers.
Hezbollah fears a return to normalcy after decades of constitutional paralysis and “non-state” dominance.
Today, whatever the divergent views on Ambassador Tom Barrack’s adapted plan, they do nothing to reduce the importance of ensuring that only the state has the right to bear arms. A state monopoly on the legitimate use of violence would strengthen Lebanon’s state institutions, enabling them to pursue a different kind of confrontation: a political, diplomatic, and legitimate battle.
This trajectory opens the door wide to the arrival of the long-promised state that is capable of overcoming the challenges of transition and building the foundations needed to safeguard sovereignty, freedoms, and pluralism. By implication, the stage for an era of accountability would be set.
