Hezbollah’s politico-military influence in Lebanon has remained stable and seemingly unshakable over the past four decades. However, recent events have radically altered the balance of power both within the country and in the broader regional context. The issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament, long considered a taboo, is now being openly discussed in both expert and political circles. This article offers an analysis of the preconditions and prospects of this process.
Historical Context: From Resistance to Domination
Founded in the early 1980s amidst the Lebanese Civil War and the Israeli occupation of the country’s southern regions, Hezbollah (Arabic: حزب الله — “Party of God”) initially positioned itself as a religious-ideological resistance movement. The organization emerged with the active support of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as a response to the growing influence of the West in the region and the Israeli military presence.
Hezbollah established its legitimacy—particularly among Lebanon’s Shiite community—through a rhetoric of struggle against the “Zionist enemy” and the defense of Muslim identity. In its early years, the group engaged in guerrilla warfare against Israel, orchestrated terrorist attacks (including beyond Lebanon’s borders), and simultaneously developed a broad network of social institutions ranging from schools and hospitals to charitable organizations. This dual strategy enabled Hezbollah to rapidly garner popular support in southern Lebanon, a region traditionally characterized by poverty and marginalization.
The withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon in 2000 marked a major milestone in the history of the organization. Hezbollah claimed credit for driving out the occupiers, a narrative that significantly boosted its popularity and reinforced its political capital. Rather than disarming, as required by United Nations Security Council resolutions (notably Resolution 1559), the group continued to expand its military capabilities. In 2006, following the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the large-scale armed conflict that ensued, Hezbollah once again solidified its image as a “victor” that had withstood the might of the Israeli army. Despite the severe losses inflicted on Lebanon, this war was perceived within the Shiite community as an act of heroic resistance.
However, this moment also marked the beginning of Hezbollah’s gradual transformation from a resistance movement into a powerful politico-military force with regional ambitions. Its integration into the Lebanese political system, which had begun in the 1990s, entered a phase of institutionalization: Hezbollah secured seats in parliament, participated in the formation of governments, and in practice became a “state within a state,” maintaining its own armed forces, intelligence apparatus, and logistical networks.
After 2005, following the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, tensions between Hezbollah and other political forces intensified. While a portion of Lebanese society advocated for sovereignty, demilitarization, and the restoration of national unity, Hezbollah continued to operate according to the logic of resistance and the regional “Shiite Crescent,” coordinating its actions with Damascus and Tehran.
All of this led to a deepening of domestic political divisions: in 2008, Hezbollah militants, for the first time since the civil war, used weapons against fellow Lebanese—supporters of the pro-Western government. This marked a turning point: the group’s military capabilities began to be viewed not as a means of national defense, but as a threat to internal stability.
Thus, Hezbollah’s historical trajectory illustrates its evolution from a marginal insurgent movement into a dominant military-political actor on both the Lebanese and regional stages. However, as subsequent developments reveal, this process of militarization and regional entanglement became the foundation for the group’s gradual loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the Lebanese public.
Causes of the Loss of Legitimacy
Despite its former popularity, Hezbollah’s position has been steadily weakening since the early 2010s. This decline has been driven primarily by internal developments and events, including:
The assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005 triggered a wave of public outrage, with a significant portion of the Lebanese population attributing responsibility for the attack to Hezbollah.
The armed clashes in Beirut in 2008, during which Hezbollah militants attacked areas controlled by government forces, set a dangerous precedent for the use of weapons against fellow citizens.
The organization’s involvement in the Syrian Civil War on the side of Bashar al-Assad's regime further eroded public trust, as Hezbollah came to be seen as an instrument of Iranian foreign policy.
Resistance to the investigation into the 2020 Beirut port explosion ultimately alienated a large segment of Lebanese society.
Among the external factors contributing to the erosion of Hezbollah’s legitimacy, the following are particularly noteworthy:
- International pressure. In 2023–2024, pressure on Hezbollah from the United States and the Gulf states reached unprecedented levels. U.S. officials, including Morgan Ortagus, openly called for the group’s disarmament and expressed support for Israeli strikes on its facilities.
- The decline of the Assad regime. The weakening of Syria’s ruling regime has constrained Hezbollah’s logistical and financial capabilities. The loss of a key ally that had ensured secure transit routes has significantly impaired the group’s ability to sustain its military infrastructure.
- Diminished political influence. In the newly formed Lebanese government, Hezbollah has failed to secure control over the country’s security apparatus and has lost its monopoly over the representation of the Shiite community. This shift signifies a reduction in its administrative and financial leverage within the state.
The Potential for Peaceful Disarmament: Preconditions and Constraints
Despite the persistent risk of escalation, certain developments suggest the possibility of a political solution. These are reflected in the following factors:
Hezbollah’s leadership has expressed a conditional openness to negotiations on disarmament—provided that Israeli aggression comes to an end.
The Lebanese president has rejected the integration of Hezbollah fighters into the national army as an organized force, instead limiting the path to integration to individual contracts through official procedures.
Pressure is mounting from within the Shiite community itself: some of Hezbollah’s previously loyal allies are now advocating for cooperation with the state and with Gulf countries.
Nevertheless, the risk of a violent scenario remains high. Any attempt at forced disarmament could trigger internal armed clashes, posing a serious threat to the country’s fragile stability.
Forecasts and Possible Scenarios
An analysis of recent developments suggests three main scenarios for the evolution of the situation:
- Gradual political disarmament, in which Hezbollah loses influence due to the depletion of resources and a decline in public support.
- Military confrontation, triggered either by external strikes or internal conflict.
- Integration into the Lebanese army on an individual basis, accompanied by the disarmament of the group’s organizational structures.
In any of these scenarios, international mediation—primarily by the United Nations—as well as coordinated pressure from the United States, France, and the Gulf states will likely be required.
Conclusion
The disarmament of Hezbollah, long considered an unattainable goal, is becoming an increasingly plausible outcome due to a combination of political, military, and economic factors. While this is neither a swift nor a straightforward process, its initiation may represent a crucial step toward the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and the promotion of regional stability. The primary task for the international community remains the creation of conditions under which this process can unfold peacefully and without compromising Lebanon’s internal stability.

Bibliography:

1. Norton, A.R. (2007). Hezbollah: A Short History. Princeton University Press.
2. Saad-Ghorayeb, A. (2002). Hizbu'llah: Politics and Religion. Pluto Press.
3. Blanford, N. (2011). Warriors of God: Inside Hezbollah’s Thirty-Year Struggle Against Israel. Random House.
4. Levitt, M. (2015). Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God. Georgetown University Press.
5. Salem, P. (2023). “The Changing Role of Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Political System.” Middle East Institute.
6. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1701 (2006).
7. Human Rights Watch (2021). Lebanon: Obstruction of Beirut Blast Investigation.
8. Al Arabiya, Haaretz, Al Jazeera — аналитические обзоры 2023–2024 годов.
9. Ortagus, M. (2024). Public statements on Hezbollah. U.S. State Department Archives.
10. International Crisis Group (2023). The Fragile Balance of Power in Lebanon.

 
 

Summary. For decades, the armed wing of the Shiite political organization Hezbollah has played a key role in Lebanon’s military and political structure. However, significant changes are emerging in the early 2020s, indicating a possible transformation of this force. The article analyzes the internal and external reasons for Hezbollah's loss of legitimacy and assesses the prospects for its partial or complete disarmament. Particular attention is paid to the changing political balance in Lebanon, international pressure, geopolitical influences and public sentiment that contribute to a possible change in the status quo.
 

Резюме. В течение нескольких десятилетий вооружённое крыло шиитской политической организации «Хезболла» играло ключевую роль в военном и политическом устройстве Ливана. Однако в начале 2020-х годов намечаются значительные изменения, свидетельствующие о возможной трансформации этой силы. Статья анализирует внутренние и внешние причины утраты легитимности «Хезболлы», а также оценивает перспективы её частичного или полного разоружения. Особое внимание уделено изменению политического баланса в Ливане, международному давлению, геополитическим влияниям и общественным настроениям, способствующим возможному изменению статус-кво.