A week ago, as Israeli airstrikes pounded Lebanon, Hezbollah supporters took to social media to mock anyone who questioned their weapons. “See why we need the resistance?” they asked. Meanwhile, the Lebanese state—the President and the Prime Minister—remained silent. For an administration that promised to uphold the constitution and restore sovereignty, this silence was deafening.
This, however, is not proof that Hezbollah’s weapons have been Lebanon’s salvation. If Hezbollah’s model had succeeded, we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place—economically paralyzed, diplomatically isolated, politically weak, and militarily vulnerable. Hezbollah has spent decades crafting a narrative to justify its armed dominance, but that narrative is now collapsing under the weight of Lebanon’s failures.
The Narrative: How Hezbollah Justifies Its Arms
For years, Hezbollah has built its legitimacy on a carefully crafted narrative designed to justify its continued military presence. At the heart of this narrative is the resistance myth—the idea that as long as Israel exists, Hezbollah must remain armed. Yet, Israel’s occupation of Lebanon ended in 2000, and rather than transitioning into a purely political role, Hezbollah expanded its operations beyond Lebanese borders, becoming actively involved in conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
Alongside this, Hezbollah promotes the victimhood argument, insisting that disarmament would leave Lebanon defenseless. However, after more than a year of Israeli airstrikes, the reality has been laid bare—where was the so-called protection that Hezbollah promised? Lebanon’s greatest vulnerability has never been the absence of a militia, but rather the failure to establish a unified national defense strategy that serves the state rather than a faction.
Finally, there is the legitimacy illusion, in which Hezbollah presents itself as a national force, yet its loyalty remains directly tied to Iran. Time and again, its actions have prioritized Tehran’s regional ambitions over Lebanon’s stability, reinforcing the undeniable truth that Hezbollah does not act solely in the interest of the Lebanese people, but rather as a strategic extension of Iran’s influence in the region.
Hezbollah exists within the Lebanese state but also above it. It claims to defend Lebanon while actively undermining it. It claims to be part of the system while ensuring that no system functions without its approval.
The Reality: Hezbollah is a Militia, not a National Army
If Hezbollah were truly a national force, it would operate under state authority—but it does not. Instead, it functions as a militia in the purest sense, maintaining exclusive access to weapons without any form of government oversight. Unlike a legitimate national defense force, Hezbollah operates under its own independent military command, entirely separate from the Lebanese Army, making unilateral security decisions without state approval. Beyond its military role, it has also built a parallel security and foreign policy structure, allowing it to act as a state within a state, engaging in cross-border operations, forming alliances, and dictating Lebanon’s strategic direction without accountability to the institutions that are meant to govern the country.
For decades, the Lebanese government has been unable to make sovereign decisions on war and peace because Hezbollah controls that narrative. The country’s foreign relations, economic stability, and security policies are dictated not by the elected government, but by a militia with a regional agenda.
The Internal Cost: Division, Weakness, and Political Stagnation
The true cost of Hezbollah’s weapons extends far beyond the battlefield—it has deeply fractured Lebanon’s social and political fabric. Hezbollah’s dominance has eroded confidence in the state itself, leaving many Lebanese feeling unrepresented by a government that cannot even control its own security. A country that claims sovereignty cannot function when military power is held outside of state institutions. This imbalance has also fueled sectarian resentment, as Hezbollah’s monopoly over decisions of war and peace has widened the divide between Lebanese factions, reinforcing historical tensions and preventing any real national unity. Meanwhile, the country remains trapped in political paralysis, where no government can operate independently, as every major decision must either align with Hezbollah’s interests or risk complete obstruction. In this reality, political negotiations are not about governance, but about survival within a system where one armed faction holds ultimate control.
Lebanon’s core issue is not just Hezbollah’s weapons—it is the system that allows this contradiction to persist.
The Economic Cost of Hezbollah’s Armed Monopoly
Beyond politics, Hezbollah’s influence has played a direct role in Lebanon’s economic collapse. By dominating key sectors such as the port, the airport, and trade routes, the group has created an economic system that benefits businesses aligned with its interests while undermining fair competition and legitimate economic growth. At the same time, it has cultivated a shadow economy—one fueled by smuggling, drug trafficking, and sanctions evasion—allowing Hezbollah’s network to thrive while Lebanon’s formal economy crumbles under inflation, debt, and financial mismanagement. This economic model, built on circumventing state institutions rather than strengthening them, has only deepened Lebanon’s diplomatic isolation. Hezbollah’s unwavering alignment with Iran has driven away foreign investment, strained relationships with the Gulf, and made Lebanon a geopolitical battleground rather than a stable economic partner. The consequences of this isolation are clear: while other nations recover, Lebanon remains stuck in a cycle of financial instability, unable to access the aid and economic opportunities it so desperately needs.
The idea that Hezbollah’s weapons are necessary to “protect Lebanon” ignores the reality that the group’s economic and political influence has been one of the primary reasons for Lebanon’s suffering.
The Real Test: The Hard Conversations Lebanon Must Have
The past week has proven once again that Lebanon cannot sustain itself under the current model. The government may have issued a ministerial statement asserting that the state alone is responsible for national defense, but this means nothing unless it is enforced.
The State Must Act—Silence is No Longer an Option
The Lebanese state must end its silence. The government must address the elephant in the room: a country cannot function with a militia that holds more power than its own military.
The question is no longer whether Hezbollah’s weapons are justifiable—the question is whether Lebanon has the political will to ensure that this is the last time we have this conversation.
Ramzi Abou Ismail is a Political Psychologist and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Social Justice and Conflict Resolution at the Lebanese American University.
The views in this story reflect those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of NOW
