During his visit to Paris last month to meet President Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam came to realise that Lebanon’s situation was far more precarious than many believed.
France, long known for mediating Lebanon’s political crises, made it clear to Salam that the country could not survive without implementing reforms – particularly the disarmament of non-state actors, namely Hezbollah – under international supervision.
There would be no renewal of the UN peacekeeping force UNIFIL’s mandate, as France could not bear the full cost without US funding; no donor or reconstruction conference without Saudi participation; and no security stability, given Israel’s determination to disarm Hezbollah by force if Lebanese authorities failed to do so themselves.
Salam briefed President Joseph Aoun and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, and moved to convene a cabinet session to discuss a US proposal for Hezbollah’s disarmament.
Aoun engaged Hezbollah to find language that could gain unanimous cabinet approval. It prioritised limiting Palestinian arms first, avoiding internationally imposed timetables, and referred the issue to the Higher Defence Council or the Lebanese Army to develop a strategy based on Lebanese priorities.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
However, less than two weeks later, Salam returned to Baabda Palace, away from the media, determined to approve the US proposal, presented by envoy Tom Barrack, in full with a timetable, as a way to “shield the state from the next wave of international escalation”.
He informed Aoun, as well as Hezbollah’s key ally Berri, who accused the president of reneging on the earlier agreement. From that moment, relations between the presidency and Hezbollah sharply deteriorated.
Despite the tension, all sides prepared for the session on 5 August, with expectations that the vote would be postponed until a few days later. But events took a different turn – Salam led the push for immediate approval, backed by ministers from the Lebanese Forces, Progressive Socialist Party, and Kataeb.
When the president and Shia ministers requested a delay, Salam refused, saying too many opportunities had already been lost. On 7 August, the government adopted the US plan after the withdrawal of Shia ministers from the session.
Hezbollah’s anger
Hezbollah accused Salam of breaking his official commitments, saying: “When Prime Minister Nawaf Salam adopts the American envoy’s roadmap, he is going against all the commitments he made in his ministerial statement, as well as those in the president’s inauguration speech.”
Lebanon’s Hezbollah rejects US roadmap as ‘surrender’
Read More »
Sources close to the group also expressed frustration with Aoun for failing to uphold the pre-session agreement, urging him to return to his earlier calls for a “national defence strategy” and arguing that no state disarms its “resistance” while its territory remains occupied.
Since last November, Israel has repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement, which requires it to withdraw completely from Lebanon. The Israeli army remains in five positions in the south and continues to carry out regular air strikes on Hezbollah targets.
The sources recalled that, as army commander during the October 2019 anti-government protests, Aoun had refused to deploy troops against civilians.
“Today, the government has thrown a ball of fire into the army’s court,” the sources said. “If the resistance’s base, part of the Lebanese people, takes to the streets to reject disarmament, will you put the army in direct confrontation with them?”
Hezbollah’s Shura Council has since instructed its leadership to avoid mobilising on the streets, warning that protests could quickly spiral into uncontrollable incidents.
‘Grave sin’
Hezbollah denounced the government’s move as a “grave sin” that strips Lebanon “of the weapon of resistance” against Israel and vowed to disregard it.
Sources close to the group said Hezbollah will continue to push for dialogue on a national defence strategy and reject disarmament without Israeli withdrawal first, and international guarantees to protect Lebanon’s southern and northeastern borders.
‘If the resistance’s base takes to the streets to reject disarmament, will you put the army in direct confrontation with them?’
– Sources close to Hezbollah
The head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, MP Mohammad Raad, warned that the government does not realise the consequences of its decision.
Under the US proposal, the army must present its plan to the cabinet by 31 August, with implementation scheduled to begin on 1 September and conclude by 31 December.
The phased plan calls for disarmament up to the Litani River, then the Awali River, followed by Beirut, and finally the Bekaa Valley – all within three months.
On Monday, after meeting the Lebanese president, Barrack said he was relatively satisfied and stressed that Israel must respect the ceasefire agreement’s provisions and begin implementing them, now that Lebanon has accepted and is preparing to apply them.
The army’s concerns
Military sources told MEE that the army is deeply concerned with preserving civil peace, warning that simply “throwing the ball of fire” into its court is not enough.
The absence of full political cover – after the withdrawal of Shia ministers – risks internal escalation, even as the government seeks to avert external confrontation.
Netanyahu is on a mission to seize the Middle East. Will anyone stop him?
Read More »
Sources close to the prime minister meanwhile told MEE that the government’s decision reflects Hezbollah’s own stated demands, including Israeli withdrawal, an end to aggression, prisoner releases, and border demarcation.
They added that the withdrawal of the Shia ministers amounted to a “no” vote rather than a resignation, and should not be overstated.
The same sources posed a question: had the government not taken this decision, what would have become of Lebanon?
Highlighting the pressure on Lebanon to adopt this step, Aoun said on Sunday that Washington warned the country would be “dropped from its agenda” if it failed to approve the proposal.
Abroad, the move has earned the government credit, easing the immediate threat of Israeli action. At home, however, it has plunged Lebanon into a political crisis that could make this “credit” impossible to cash in.
‘The resistance will not hand over weapons’
Ultimately, the army’s mission rests on two priorities: preserving civil peace and avoiding confrontation with any Lebanese faction. Whether it can balance these goals – restricting arms while maintaining stability – remains the central question.
Last week, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem declared that the group would refuse to hand over its weapons to the Lebanese state and was prepared to confront any attempt to force it, sparking sharp criticism across Lebanon’s political spectrum.
‘The resistance will not hand over its weapons as long as aggression and occupation continue’
– Naim Qassem, Hezbollah leader
Qassem accused the government of “delivering” the country to Israel by pushing for disarmament, and warned of civil unrest.
“The resistance will not hand over its weapons as long as aggression and occupation continue. We will fight if necessary to counter this project, whatever the cost,” he said.
Aoun dismissed the warnings of civil war as “unjustified” and nothing more than “words”.
Berri, meanwhile, distanced himself by saying, “There is no fear of civil war and no threat to internal peace.”
Sources close to Hezbollah told MEE that, despite the fiery rhetoric, the speech carried deliberate messages that should be carefully read.
On weapons, the group will not disarm until Israel withdraws and ends its attacks, still leaving the door open to discussions on arms once these conditions are met.
On civil unrest, the sources said Hezbollah did not intend to threaten Lebanon with civil war, but to convey that its community feels cornered – and that, if pushed too far, it would rather die armed than disarm.
