Lebanon cannot guarantee any peace deal while Hezbollah keeps its weapons |
Lebanon stands at a familiar yet increasingly unforgiving crossroads. Once again, the country is being drawn into the gravitational pull of regional conflict, external bargaining, and internal paralysis. But this moment is distinct in one crucial way: the margin for ambiguity has evaporated. The question is no longer whether Lebanon can maneuver diplomatically between competing powers-it is whether the Lebanese state actually possesses the authority to commit to anything at all.
At the heart of this dilemma lies a simple but decisive truth: no Lebanese leader, including President Joseph Aoun, can credibly guarantee the implementation of any international agreement while Hezbollah retains its independent military capacity. This is not a matter of rhetoric or political positioning; it is a structural constraint that undermines the very concept of state sovereignty.
Recent signals from Washington have sharpened this reality. The United States appears more direct, even blunt, in its expectations than in previous administrations. The underlying message is clear: support for Lebanon—financial, military, and diplomatic—is conditional. It hinges on one central requirement: the dismantling of Hezbollah’s armed apparatus. Without that, no meaningful backing in negotiations with Israel or broader regional arrangements will materialize.
This is not simply an American demand imposed from outside. It reflects a growing recognition within Lebanon itself. For decades, the justification for Hezbollah’s arms rested on resistance-first against Israeli occupation, later framed as deterrence. But the cost-benefit equation has shifted dramatically. What was once portrayed as strategic necessity has increasingly become a liability, dragging Lebanon into conflicts it neither chooses nor controls.
The Lebanese........