- The debate over Hizbullah’s arsenal continues to dominate Lebanon’s political arena.
- While some parties call for the organization to disarm and restore the state’s monopoly over the use of force, Hizbullah remains determined to preserve both its military and political status – even at the cost of escalating internal tensions.
The latest speech by Hizbullah’s Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem on August 15 vividly illustrates the group’s uncompromising stance.
Qassem reiterated previous statements, making it clear that any attempt to force Hizbullah to lay down its arms would trigger a “fierce response” and even warned that such efforts could spiral into civil war.
He stressed, “Anyone who thinks they can take away our weapons is gravely mistaken. We will defend them by all means.”
Israeli security sources say Hizbullah is walking a dangerous line regarding the question of disarmament, and that Qassem’s speech is directly linked to the recent visit to Lebanon by Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
According to these sources, Larijani provided assurances and promises of continued Iranian support – both in weapons and funds – to encourage Hizbullah’s defiance of Lebanon’s government demand that it disarm.
These promises, they argue, gave Hizbullah a boost of confidence, ensuring its ability to rearm militarily and rebuild the homes of its fighters destroyed during the war in southern Lebanon and Beirut’s Dahiya district.
Qassem’s fiery speech not only reflects Hizbullah’s strategic vision but also sends a clear message to its political rivals: the group is willing to go to great lengths to preserve the current balance of power.
Weapons thus serve not only as a deterrent against Israel but also as a guarantee of Hizbullah’s dominance in Lebanon’s political system.
On August 16, Hizbullah MP Ibrahim Mousawi asserted that the “weapons of resistance” remain Lebanon’s actual safeguard against Israeli schemes to fragment the region.
He also claimed that Qassem’s remarks had been deliberately distorted by certain actors seeking to portray Hizbullah as pushing the country toward civil war.
Meanwhile, growing voices in Lebanon are calling for the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions demanding that all militias disarm.
Yet in light of Hizbullah’s firm stance – reinforced by Qassem’s words – such a move seems unlikely to occur without severe internal upheaval.
According to Israeli security officials, Hizbullah’s most significant struggle is no longer against Israel or Lebanon’s central government, but increasingly within the Shiite community itself. The organization’s arsenal functions not only as a military tool but also as a complex political and social mechanism serving three main purposes: sustaining the image of “resistance” against Israel, consolidating Hizbullah’s influence over state institutions, and maintaining exclusive control over Shiite representation.
For years, Hizbullah benefited from domestic and regional support that allowed it to unite these objectives under the banner of “resistance.”
Yet in recent years – and particularly since the latest ceasefire with Israel – this formula has begun to falter.
A large-scale confrontation with Israel appears improbable after Hizbullah’s setbacks in the last war. At the same time, the Lebanese government’s insistence that weapons remain under state authority undermines the legitimacy of Hizbullah’s arsenal.
Hizbullah’s motorcycle parades in Beirut and its public shows of force are less demonstrations of strength than signs of shrinking room for maneuver following the group’s military weakening.
For Hizbullah, the paramount challenge is maintaining Shiite unity behind its leadership. Its entire strategic logic – from its security rhetoric to its domestic policies – seeks to reinforce the perception that its weapons are the guarantor of Shiite security in Lebanon.
The message of “defending Lebanon” is aimed first and foremost at the Shiite public, which is urged to see Hizbullah not as one political option among many, but as the indispensable protector of the community.
In the absence of active war with Israel, Hizbullah’s arsenal functions as political currency.
Control over weapons grants the group leverage to dictate the agenda not only within the Shiite community but also on the national stage.
In this way, weapons become an alternative source of legitimacy, allowing Hizbullah to position itself as a parallel power to Lebanon’s constitutional institutions.
Nevertheless, Lebanese commentators argue that Hizbullah cannot ignore reality indefinitely. Like all Lebanese citizens, Shiites live within a single state framework.
Past attempts to bypass or undermine the Lebanese state have led to economic crises, social collapse, and severe internal weakness.
The question remains: can Hizbullah continue to ignore the demands of the Lebanese state and the majority of its citizens to disarm? For now, it seems the group is gambling on defiance and relying on Iran’s backing.
The ball, however, is back in the Lebanese government’s court – it will eventually face the difficult decision of whether to disarm Hizbullah forcibly.
