The response to American pressures came swiftly from the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, with a firm rejection of these pressures and a clear accusation against those who demand the disarmament of the party as “serving the Israeli project.” Qassem’s statements coincided with preparations by the Lebanese government to hold an anticipated session next Tuesday, the first of its kind, to discuss a plan to gradually disarm Hezbollah under the exclusive authority of state weapons.
According to several political analysts, historical precedents indicate that any such move might be met with direct escalation from the party, as happened on May 7, 2008, in response to the government’s decision at the time to dismantle its private communication network.
Conversely, statements by Army Commander General Rudolf Heikal, on the occasion of the 80th Army Day, emphasized that the military institution “continues to carry out its duties despite limited resources,” affirming the implementation of the political authority’s decision and the application of UN Resolution 1701, which stipulates that weapons should be exclusive to the state.
Another equally significant aspect is the international community’s, particularly Arab and Western countries’, linkage of any future reconstruction projects in Lebanon with the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons. This linkage places Lebanon in a harsh dilemma: either to effectively move forward to open doors for support or to sink into even harsher financial and economic isolation amid a comprehensive collapse that threatens to annihilate state institutions.
