A State Paralyzed: Lebanon's Government Stalls on Arms Control as Southern Border Burns

The Lebanese government's recent cabinet session concluded not with a decisive strategy, but with the deferral of a critical debate on national defense and arms control, a recurring theme that underscores a crippling state paralysis. [3] This indecision is not a mere political disagreement but a manifestation of the core conflict dividing the nation: the tension between the principle of a sovereign state holding the sole monopoly on violence and the powerful reality of Hezbollah, an armed non-state actor actively engaged in cross-border hostilities with Israel. While the cabinet managed to address routine matters, the deliberate sidestepping of Hezbollah's arsenal, the very tool prosecuting the southern conflict, exposes a government unable to assert its authority over matters of war and peace. [1] This paralysis is a direct consequence of the deep schism between political blocs demanding a sovereign security policy and those aligned with Hezbollah's agenda. [4] The foundation for this political deadlock is Lebanon's dire economic and social landscape. The country is mired in one of the world's worst economic crises in modern history, with a collapsed banking sector, hyperinflation, and the disintegration of public services. In this vacuum, Hezbollah has cultivated a deep-rooted social support system in its strongholds, providing essential services, from healthcare to financial aid, that the state can no longer offer. This parallel system of welfare creates a powerful dependency, cementing the group's political influence and making any state-led initiative to challenge its military authority a socially and politically fraught endeavor for a significant portion of the population. The current stalemate is a predictable outcome of Lebanon's post-civil war history. The 1989 Taif Agreement, which ended the 15-year conflict, mandated the disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, yet made a crucial exception for Hezbollah to continue its armed "resistance" against the Israeli occupation of the south. Subsequent UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, explicitly called for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, a mandate that has remained unimplemented for nearly two decades. This history has entrenched a dual-authority structure, creating the 'state within a state' dynamic that now paralyzes all national decision-making on security. The actions of the various stakeholders are a direct expression of their conflicting interests. Hezbollah and its political allies, including the Amal Movement, are committed to preserving their military capabilities, which they frame as essential for national defense and link to a broader regional strategy aligned with Iran. Hezbollah's Deputy Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, reinforced this position, stating that Lebanon's interest lies in restoring calm to the south, implicitly defending the group's role. [2] Conversely, factions such as the Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb Party advocate for the state's exclusive right to control arms and make security decisions. Their interests lie in restoring domestic stability, strengthening international relations—particularly with Western and Gulf nations that oppose Hezbollah's influence—and unlocking crucial foreign aid. Caught between these immovable forces, the caretaker government led by Prime Minister Najib Mikati prioritizes survival, opting for inaction on divisive issues to prevent the complete collapse of the state's last functioning executive body. [1, 4] Ultimately, the government's inability to act decisively on arms control profoundly erodes Lebanon's sovereignty, leaving the critical decision of war and peace in the hands of a non-state actor. This inaction not only perpetuates the country's international isolation and blocks pathways to economic recovery but also significantly heightens the risk of the ongoing border skirmishes escalating into a devastating, full-scale conflict with Israel—a conflict whose ignition would be beyond the state's control. Without a resolution to this fundamental internal power struggle, Lebanon's political landscape is set to remain one of stagnation and fragility, with its sovereignty compromised and its population living under the constant threat of a war not of the state's making.