Lebanon on the Brink: Washington’s Gamble Could Ignite Another Middle East War

By Mohamad Hammoud

Lebanon – On Friday, September 5, Lebanon’s cabinet gathered inside the Grand Serail. This Ottoman-era palace has withstood civil war, invasion, and the 2020 port explosion. The agenda was stark: Army Commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal presented a forty-two-page roadmap calling for the Lebanese Armed Forces [LAF] to “systematically degrade and ultimately disarm” Hezbollah within eighteen months.

The meeting quickly unraveled. All five Shia ministers—representing Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and an independent—walked out, stripping the cabinet of its sectarian quorum. They declared any decision taken without Shia participation “null and void”, warning that pressing forward risked civil unrest. For them, disarmament is not a policy debate but a matter of survival. As one Hezbollah official told The Arab Weekly, the plan rested on “an illegal decision,” and weapons remain vital so long as “Israel” continues its military operations in southern Lebanon.

A Fragile Army and a Risky Gamble

The government attempted to downplay the crisis. Information Minister Paul Morcos insisted the cabinet “welcomed” the plan and would implement it “within available resources”. Yet the fine print underscored Lebanon’s weakness: the army is chronically underfunded, dependent on foreign aid even for ammunition, and divided along sectarian lines. According to The Times of Israel, Morcos admitted the LAF’s capabilities are “limited in terms of logistics, material and human resources”.

Military analyst Elijah Magnier told Al Jazeera that the army has “no appetite to start a civil war”. If ordered to storm Shia neighborhoods, key brigades—some led by officers tied to Amal—could splinter. Lebanon has been here before: in the 1980s, the army fractured, dragging the country into deeper bloodshed. Haykal himself warned that ordering LAF units into Shia strongholds could trigger defections.

The imbalance is clear. The LAF has only 3,000 soldiers trained for urban combat. At the same time, Hezbollah fields an estimated 20,000–25,000 combat-ready fighters backed by some 45,000 rockets. The state cannot enforce disarmament without risking collapse.

National Security Strategy and “Israeli” Violations

Faced with this fragility, the cabinet framed the plan as part of a broader “national security strategy”. Beirut, Morcos stressed, “has not and will not make any concessions to ‘Israel’”. The government tied any implementation to “Israel’s” adherence to the ceasefire, accusing Tel Aviv of ongoing violations. UNIFIL has recorded over 8,000 “Israeli” breaches since November—airstrikes, drone flights and ground incursions.

For Hezbollah and its allies, these figures justify their stance. Hezbollah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan told PBS the US-backed plan amounted to “complete submission” to Washington, pointing to “Israel’s” behavior as proof that Hezbollah’s arsenal remains necessary for deterrence.

Washington’s Push and Foreign Incentives

For Washington, the plan is a breakthrough. Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Jim Risch called it “historic”. Trump’s envoys dangled a ten-year, $10 billion aid package if implementation begins this year. Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, promised economic incentives tied to progress on disarmament. Yet Congress has been clear: no funds will flow until Hezbollah no longer controls significant weapons depots.

“Israel’s” Calculations

Across the border, "Israeli" entity's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Beirut’s debate as “momentous”, promising withdrawals from five hilltop positions if the plan advances. Yet “Israeli” jets continue daily bombing runs. Within “Israel’s” security cabinet, intelligence officials warn that opening a new front with Hezbollah could overstretch forces already engaged in Gaza. At the same time, hard-liners see a chance to weaken their most formidable adversary.

This paradox is glaring: “Israel” demands that Hezbollah disarm, while its own strikes reinforce the rationale for Hezbollah’s weapons.

Lebanon’s Divided Reality

On the ground, skepticism cuts across sectarian lines. In Beirut’s southern suburbs, Shia residents insist no weapons will be surrendered while “Israeli” warplanes circle overhead. Many Christians and Druze acknowledge that the group remains the only effective deterrent in a state too weak to defend its borders.

The government’s ambiguity—neither fully endorsing nor rejecting the plan—mirrors this divided reality. Hezbollah and its allies insist their armed status is inseparable from Lebanon’s security and dignity. As Kurdistan24 reported, the group has vowed it “will not abandon its weapons under any circumstances.”

Three Dangerous Scenarios

Lebanon now faces three options. A decisive army move could provoke Hezbollah and plunge the country into civil war, with Washington and Riyadh on one side and Tehran on the other. If the army stalls, “Israel” may use the failure as justification for renewed war. The third option—gradual negotiation under US and French mediation—offers the only potential off-ramp, but it requires phased concessions, “Israeli” withdrawal, and credible guarantees, none of which exist today.

A Nation at the Crossroads

For now, Lebanon’s leadership has chosen ambiguity. Washington and “Israel” are betting pressure will break Hezbollah; Hezbollah is betting time and resilience will prevail.

The larger question remains: does pushing Lebanon to the brink serve US interests—or risk igniting a war that neither “Israel” nor America can afford to fight? For Lebanon’s Shia, the answer is clear: disarmament without security is surrender—and surrender is not an option.