Disarmament or Destruction?
By Mohammad Hammoud
In countries that value sovereignty and dignity, resisting occupation is regarded as a sacred duty. Resistance fighters are viewed as heroes who sacrifice their lives for the freedom and security of others. People cherish their resistance movements and their right to defend their land.
However, in Lebanon, the situation is different. While “Israel” continues to occupy Lebanese territory and its leaders openly express ambitions for a "Greater Israel," the Lebanese government is calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah. If Hezbollah were dismantled and Lebanon faced aggression again, who would defend the nation? Would the international community protect us?
No. Lebanon will receive the same empty condemnations as Gaza: superficial statements in front of the cameras while covertly supplying the aggressor behind the scenes. This is the harsh reality Lebanon confronts now.
Two Decisions, Two Futures
On August 5, 2025, two declarations laid bare Lebanon’s future—and they could not have been more opposed. From Baabda Palace, the Cabinet announced it had tasked the Army with drafting a plan by December 31 to disarm all non-state actors, a move implicitly targeting Hezbollah.
Just an hour later, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Sheik Naim Qassem, delivered a thunderous speech from Haret Hreik. His message was unequivocal: Hezbollah would never surrender its weapons to “Israel.” The Resistance, he warned, would rather embrace martyrdom than hand over its arms and be left defenseless in their own homes.
Washington’s Ultimatum
Behind the Cabinet’s decision stood the heavy hand of Washington. US envoy Tom Barrack arrived in Beirut not as a diplomat, but as an enforcer. On August 4, he delivered what has become known as the “Third Memorandum”—a three-point ultimatum demanding the dismantling of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure within weeks.
The consequences for noncompliance were explicit: suspension of IMF funding, cancellation of Gulf reconstruction loans, and even the downgrading of the Lebanese passport in the U.S. visa system. This was not diplomacy—it was economic coercion, cloaked in the language of reform.
A Dangerous Precedent
This is not merely about weapons—it is about who controls Lebanon’s destiny. By submitting to American pressure, the government crossed a red line that even previous administrations—no allies of Hezbollah—refused to approach.
It placed the demands of a foreign envoy above the needs and will of the Lebanese people.
The irony is bitter. The same United States that shields “Israel” from accountability now insists Lebanon dismantle the only force that has consistently defended its land. The Taif Agreement, which ended Lebanon’s civil war in 1989, explicitly allowed armed resistance “so long as ‘Israel’ occupies or threatens Lebanese territory.”
That condition still holds: “Israeli” drones patrol Lebanese skies, and “Israeli” forces remain on Lebanese soil. Yet, Washington demands Hezbollah disarm unilaterally—while openly admitting it “cannot compel Israel” to fulfill its obligations under UN Resolution 1701.
A Call to Rethink the Debate
In his defiant speech, Sheik Naim Qassem reframed the entire debate: “Give us a timetable to deter the aggressor,” he said, “not to disarm the defender.”
His words resonated beyond Hezbollah’s base. Lebanon has seen this pattern before: foreign powers drawing red lines, issuing ultimatums, and pushing the country toward internal conflict under the pretense of “state-building.” Sheikh Qassem reminded listeners that over 5,000 Hezbollah fighters have died since October 2023. Those who shed their blood to defend the South cannot be asked to surrender their rifles to spreadsheets drafted in foreign capitals.
The Ghost of Civil War
Sheik Qassem’s speech was more than defiance—it was a historical warning. Lebanon’s last civil war began when foreign-backed factions attempted to restructure internal power dynamics. Today’s disarmament push threatens to reopen those wounds.
Forcing the Lebanese Army—an institution made up of all sects—to confront Hezbollah risks fracturing the last true symbol of national unity. That is not state-building. It is state sabotage.
Who Really Benefits?
Indeed, not the Lebanese people. The only beneficiaries of Hezbollah’s disarmament are “Israel,” which would eliminate its most effective military threat, and American-aligned Arab regimes eager to normalize ties with Tel Aviv and bury the Palestinian cause.
Barrack’s plan, complete with “verification teams” and missile quotas, is not about helping Lebanon. It is about clearing the path for unchecked Israeli regional dominance.
Surrender by Another Name
The true tragedy lies in how willingly some Lebanese elites have embraced their own subjugation. The Cabinet’s decision is not just weak—it is complicit. Instead of resisting pressure, it welcomed it. Instead of demanding that “Israel” honor its obligations, it turned its fire inward—at the only force standing in defense of national dignity.
This is not leadership. It is surrender-masquerading as responsibility.
A Final Choice
The Resistance is not Lebanon’s problem—it is the result of Lebanon’s deeper problems: foreign occupation, political betrayal, and decades of foreign meddling. Disarming Hezbollah before these issues are resolved is neither feasible nor just.
As Sheik Qassem declared:
“Give us a timetable to deter the aggressor, not to disarm the defender.”
Lebanon now stands at a crossroads. It must decide whether it will stand with those who defend its dignity—or with those who barter it away for loans and diplomatic favors.
If the cost of sovereignty is Resistance, then Resistance is the only path forward.
Otherwise, Lebanon risks surrendering not just its weapons—but its future.
