Lebanon's Two-Front War: Sovereignty Under Fire from Israel and Within

A recent escalation of Israeli airstrikes targeting Hezbollah infrastructure in southern and eastern Lebanon has once again placed the nation on a war footing. [4, 7] The attacks, which killed four people on July 31st and struck what Israel described as strategic weapons production sites, are more than just another chapter in a long-running military conflict. [9, 10] They are a violent manifestation of Lebanon's deepest and most dangerous internal contradiction: the struggle for sovereignty between the official Lebanese state and the heavily armed non-state actor, Hezbollah. This core tension is starkly highlighted by the simultaneous calls from key Lebanese leaders, including the President and Prime Minister, for the state to have exclusive control over all weapons, a direct challenge to Hezbollah's parallel military power. [17, 31, 36] The foundation of this power struggle is rooted in Lebanon's profound economic and social collapse. The country is mired in one of the most severe economic crises globally since the mid-nineteenth century, which has decimated the value of its currency and pushed over 80% of the population into poverty. [18, 24] This has led to the near-total failure of the public sector to provide basic services. [24, 29] Into this vacuum, Hezbollah has methodically built a parallel state, offering a wide array of social welfare programs, including food subsidies, healthcare, and financial services through its own institutions. [15, 21, 29] This network engenders significant loyalty, particularly but not exclusively within the Shiite community, challenging the legitimacy of the crippled Lebanese state and making the issue of disarmament a complex social and political problem, not merely a military one. [15] The current crisis is a predictable outcome of historical trends and unresolved issues. The 1989 Taif Agreement, which ended Lebanon's civil war, called for the disbanding of all Lebanese militias, yet Hezbollah was allowed to retain its arsenal under the pretext of resisting Israeli occupation. [12, 16] Subsequently, UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, explicitly called for the disarmament of all armed groups and the establishment of an area south of the Litani River free of any armed personnel other than the Lebanese army and UN peacekeepers. [3, 5, 13] This resolution has never been fully implemented, allowing Hezbollah to build a formidable arsenal that directly challenges the state's monopoly on force and creates a permanent pretext for Israeli military action. [5, 12] The escalating violence has crystallized the conflicting interests of the key stakeholders. The Lebanese government, led by President Joseph Aoun, seeks to assert national sovereignty and maintain crucial international alliances, particularly with the United States. [22] This is evidenced by Aoun's recent meeting with the U.S. CENTCOM commander, where he emphasized the need for U.S. support for the Lebanese Army as the sole defender of the nation and reiterated his position on the state's exclusive right to arms. [22, 26, 35] Political leaders like former Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Druze leader Taymour Jumblatt echo this call, arguing that a state monopoly on weapons is essential to prevent internal strife and avoid being dragged into a devastating regional war. [25, 31, 14, 23] In stark opposition, Hezbollah, through leaders like Naim Qassem, rejects any calls to disarm, framing them as a surrender to Israeli interests and insisting on its right to maintain its security agenda. [17, 34] This stance invites Israeli attacks, which aim to degrade Hezbollah's military capabilities, thereby trapping Lebanon in a cycle of conflict. [6, 9] The intensifying Israeli attacks are acting as a powerful catalyst, forcing this internal power struggle into the open and transforming it from a chronic political debate into an urgent existential crisis. The conflict exposes the dangerous paralysis of the Lebanese state, which is unable to control its own defense policy or prevent a non-state actor from making decisions of war and peace for the entire country. [27] This is a defining moment for Lebanon, forcing a national conversation about its identity as a sovereign state. The path forward is perilous, as continued conflict threatens to shatter its already collapsed economy while any diplomatic solution appears contingent on resolving the intractable issue of Hezbollah's arms. [17, 24, 30] Under fire from both the sky and from within, the very future of a unified, sovereign Lebanon hangs in the balance.