U.S. Pushes Lebanon to Disarm Hezbollah Amid Regional Tensions

The Trump administration is intensifying pressure on Lebanon to disarm the Iran-backed Hezbollah, with U.S. Ambassador Thomas Barrack recently labeling Lebanon a “failed state” due to its inability to control the terrorist organization. Speaking in Bahrain, Barrack highlighted the stark disparities between Hezbollah and Lebanon’s official armed forces: Hezbollah maintains approximately 40,000 fighters who receive $2,200 monthly, while Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) soldiers earn just $275 per month with inferior equipment. Despite a U.S.-brokered ceasefire in November 2024 and Lebanon’s acceptance of an American plan to disarm Hezbollah by the end of 2025, there’s little evidence of meaningful progress in dismantling the group’s extensive network.

Israeli security expert Sarit Zehavi from the Alma Research and Education Center expressed skepticism about Lebanon’s commitment to disarming Hezbollah, stating that “Israel is the only one disarming Hezbollah with its airstrikes.” Zehavi, who resides in northern Israel, emphasized that effective disarmament would require the Lebanese army to conduct thorough house-to-house searches in southern villages, seize weapons transparently, and publicly identify cleared areas—actions that simply aren’t happening. The U.S. State Department has reinforced this view, declaring that “an armed Hezbollah is a threat to Lebanon and its neighbors” and stressing that disarming the group is “crucial to ensuring peace and stability in Lebanon and across the region.” U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus directly called on the Lebanese military to “fully implement its plan” during a recent visit to Lebanon.

Tensions escalated dramatically last week when the Lebanese army condemned an Israeli attack that killed a municipal worker in the border town of Blida, calling it “a criminal act” and a violation of the ceasefire agreement. In response, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun instructed the army to confront any Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon—his first such order since taking office in January. Shortly afterward, Israeli warplanes flew over the presidential palace in Beirut in what appeared to be a show of force. The United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) condemned the Israeli action as “a blatant violation of the Security Council Resolution 1701 and Lebanon’s sovereignty,” highlighting the fragility of the situation along the border.

The role of UNIFIL itself has come under scrutiny from Israeli officials who have long argued that the UN force has failed in its mandate to aid the Lebanese Army in disarming Hezbollah. When questioned about allegations that Hezbollah is rearming, UNIFIL spokesperson Tilak Pokharel stated that their forces operate in a limited area covering just 10% of Lebanon’s territory, adding, “We have not seen any build-up, and we have been working every day and supporting them, the Lebanese Armed Forces.” However, this assessment contradicts Israeli intelligence and observations from experts who see clear evidence of Hezbollah’s efforts to reconstitute its military capabilities, particularly in areas beyond UNIFIL’s monitoring range.

Matthew Levitt, a prominent Hezbollah scholar from the Washington Institute, notes that “nobody should be surprised that Hezbollah is trying hard to rebuild its capabilities,” which explains why “Israeli forces continue to strike Hezbollah forces, not only in the south but also in the Beqaa Valley.” Despite these challenges, Levitt points to some promising developments, such as the Lebanese Central Bank’s actions against Hezbollah’s financial institutions, which suggest the group “is under pressure at home as well.” This financial pressure could potentially complement military efforts to constrain Hezbollah’s operations, though it remains insufficient to fully neutralize the organization on its own.

American academic Walid Phares has observed a growing movement among Lebanese citizens calling for diplomatic relations with Israel in the wake of Hezbollah’s military setbacks. “Many Lebanese have witnessed Hezbollah’s defeat in its confrontation with Israel,” Phares explained, “dispelling the long-standing notion—promoted by Hezbollah—that it is invincible.” This shift in public perception has led more Lebanese to advocate for dialogue with Israeli leaders, hoping such engagement might encourage U.S. support for disarming Hezbollah. However, Phares cautions that “despite this military setback, the militia in Lebanon shows no intention of relinquishing its weapons” and “continues to receive directives from the Islamic Republic of Iran to endure the current circumstances and prepare for future conflict.”

The U.S. State Department has expressed full support for Lebanon’s decision to designate the Lebanese Armed Forces as “the sole legitimately armed force in Lebanon,” calling it a “courageous and historic decision.” A State Department official emphasized America’s commitment to partnering with Lebanon’s government “to make sure that Lebanon is free, prosperous and safe for all Lebanese people.” However, the Lebanese government’s silence on the matter—the Lebanese embassy in Washington and the government in Beirut did not respond to press queries—raises questions about its political will and capacity to confront Hezbollah effectively. As regional tensions persist and Israel continues targeted operations against Hezbollah, the prospects for genuine disarmament remain uncertain, with potential implications for broader Middle East stability in the coming months.