1. Home
2. Lebanon
3. Lebanon Embraces Change as Aoun Presses for Hezbollah’s Inescapable Disarmament

There is no longer any doubt that the dramatic developments in Lebanon and the broader region have fundamentally shifted the balance of power, with no possibility of turning back. The wind of change is blowing softly, and those who wish to be part of the path to peace and stability in the Middle East must act quickly before it’s too late.

Lebanon appears to have taken the decision, with President Joseph Aoun boldly defining the country’s direction, as evidenced in his inaugural speech. After securing the government’s vote of confidence, he embarked on his foreign trips, starting with Saudi Arabia as promised, in response to the invitation of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, before attending the Arab Summit in Cairo.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, continues to present conflicting positions, balancing its commitment to resistance and arms with its calls for a strong state under the Taif Agreement, as articulated by MP Mohammed Raad. Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, stated, “The resistance agreed to the enemy's request for a ceasefire because there is no interest in continuing the fight without a political horizon. We will participate in building a strong and just state, contributing to its revival based on equality between citizens in rights and duties under the Taif Agreement.”

Opposition sources argue that Hezbollah cannot simultaneously uphold the Taif Agreement as the framework for Lebanon’s future while holding onto resistance and arms. Nowhere in the Taif Agreement, the Constitution, the inaugural speech or the government’s policy statement is there any mention of resistance. Instead, all these documents stress the state's exclusive authority over the use of arms, as it alone is responsible for ensuring the protection of the nation and its citizens.

President Aoun’s statements to the Iranian delegation in Baabda marked a clear turning point, reflecting a bold shift in Lebanon’s stance. He declared, “For decades, Lebanon has lost great leaders. Lebanon is weary of being a battleground for the wars of others. We share the view expressed in the Iranian Constitution that a country’s freedom, independence, territorial integrity and security are indivisible. No individual, group or official has the right to undermine the nation’s political, cultural, economic or military independence, nor to jeopardize its territorial unity under the guise of exercising freedom.”

Aoun’s comments followed provocative actions bearing Iranian influence, including the display of Iranian flags at the airport and along its roads. He made it clear that Lebanon would no longer be a pawn or a battleground in external conflicts. The country, he said, can no longer bear the consequences of Iran’s agenda — it has already paid too high a price. Lebanon must now distance itself from regional rivalries and fully embrace the Baabda Declaration to preserve its neutrality.

In contrast, a politician close to Hezbollah justifies the group’s ambiguous stance on resistance by expressing concern about the potential repercussions this phase may have, particularly with the diminishing Iranian influence. He fears it could lead to a scenario similar to what befell the Lebanese Forces (LF) after the Taif Agreement, when they gave up their weapons. Circles within the LF clarify that what they experienced was, at the time, a Syrian-backed coup against the Taif Agreement, with Hezbollah's involvement. Visitors to the presidential palace convey that “the state is broad enough to embrace all its citizens when they return to its fold.” They also emphasize that the presidential oath serves as a roadmap for building a strong state. Through disarmament, the law would apply equally to all, as everyone seeks a strong state — one that recognizes Lebanon’s sovereignty and a definitive homeland for all.

A military expert argues disarming does not require raids or extensive pursuit; the state would simply seize the weapons found by its agencies, while the rest would eventually rust away. There is no need for dialogue to discuss the defense strategy concerning Hezbollah’s weapons. Dialogue should, instead, focus on how to develop and modernize the state. The issue of weapons is already settled, under the state’s monopoly on arms, as outlined in the presidential oath and the policy statement endorsed by Hezbollah MPs.

LF circles contend that “Hezbollah should have demonstrated the same courage and boldness as Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, who called for the party’s disbarment. Ocalan advocated for a shift toward political engagement, integration into the state and society, and the rejection of microstates and division. He foresaw the winds of change and quickly adapted to the new phase. What is happening in Syria is part of this broader trend toward transformation with the new leadership under Ahmad al-Sharaa, who “expelled” Iran and its proxies and banned the carrying of weapons, even for Palestinians. Iraq has been following a similar course since Bashar al-Assad's fall, as it sought to maintain the presence of US forces to address emerging challenges.