Beirut showdown: Hezbollah slams foreign project to dismantle resistance

Mohamad Shams Eddine, The Cradle, August 7, 2025 —

The Grand Serail sees intense debates over a US-led plan to strip resistance factions of arms, revealing the deep fault lines within the Lebanese state.

At a cabinet session convened earlier this week on 5 August at the Grand Serail (Government Palace), the Lebanese government spent more than five hours grappling with a divisive American proposal to disarm what it calls “illegal weapons” – a thinly veiled reference to Hezbollah and allied resistance factions. The paper, delivered by US envoy Tom Barrack, was laid on the table for discussion, sparking an immediate and heated response.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun opened the session by urging ministers to embrace what he called “positive engagement” with international demands, which he claimed would restore foreign confidence and unlock economic support. 

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Nawaf Salam then presented the American document, which outright dismissed Lebanese Parliament Speaker and Amal Movement leader Nabih Berri’s national initiative, deeming it “nothing more than a means of narrowing the gaps” and calling instead for a firm, time-bound disarmament plan.

The US proposal mandated the Lebanese army to begin disarming non-state actors by late August, completing the operation within 90 days, with logistical backing from the US, France, and several Arab states.

Lebanon’s Cabinet resumed its sessions Today, Thursday, 7 August, dedicating a significant portion to discussing the controversial issue of “exclusive arms control.” The move sparked strong objections from Hezbollah and its ally, the Amal Movement, led by Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. Since Tuesday, political and popular reactions have poured in following the government’s decision to give the Lebanese army until the end of this month to present a mechanism for collecting and regulating all arms on Lebanese territory, with implementation expected by the end of the year.

“We cannot talk about the resistance’s weapons” 

During today’s session, Lebanese Minister of Labor Mohammad Haidar, referencing US envoy Tom Barrack’s proposal, said, “I am one of the people – how can I face the mother of a martyr or a young man living in existential anxiety and tell him he must give up the only guarantee that protects him?” Haidar emphasized that any discussion of resistance weapons is premature without Israel’s withdrawal, the return of prisoners, an end to attacks, and a serious reconstruction process. He refused to bear responsibility for any decision that would leave the people feeling abandoned or unjustly treated.

Army on high alert 

Anticipating unrest or popular mobilizations – particularly between Hezbollah and Amal supporters and residents of east Beirut – the Lebanese army deployed at key flashpoints to prevent any escalation or sectarian clashes. Simultaneously, the Israeli army announced it had struck Hezbollah sites in southern Lebanon, targeting weapons depots and rocket launch locations.

Israel continues to exert pressure on Hezbollah to disarm, while the Lebanese government has tasked the army with developing a roadmap to achieve this objective.

The US proposal and its controversial amendments

Sources close to Speaker Nabih Berri told Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that the Lebanese government received a third, amended version of the US proposal drafted by envoy Tom Barrack. It reportedly focuses on three central issues: the security situation with Israel, the Lebanese–Syrian border, and a timetable for disarmament.

Berri expressed dismay over what he described as a dramatic shift in the proposal’s language. “The problem lies in the difference between the second and third versions … it went from bad to worse.” According to the sources, Shia ministers attended the second Cabinet session specifically “to warn against the dangers of the paper,” which they argue threatens Lebanon’s economic and sovereign interests.

Hezbollah: “We will not disarm or accept foreign dictates”

In a sharp rebuke, Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc – the “Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc” – issued a strongly worded statement following its weekly meeting. The group declared Lebanon is going through “one of its most dangerous phases” due to a US-Israeli offensive and accused the government of succumbing to “foreign dictates” while undermining the only available deterrent force against aggression.

The bloc warned that Salam’s endorsement of Barrack’s proposal amounts to a betrayal of the Cabinet’s policy statement and the president’s oath of office. “Any feeble attempt to tamper with the resistance’s weapons serves as a free gift to the Israeli enemy,” the statement said, urging the government to reconsider its path and instead formulate a comprehensive national security strategy before reopening the weapons file.

A double message from Berri – and a denial

A report published by the Lebanese news outlet Al-Modon ignited controversy when it quoted sources close to Berri as calling for “realism” and warning against pushing too hard to enforce the government’s decision. The speaker’s office quickly denied the statements, calling them “fabrications,” insisting that Berri’s positions are not communicated via anonymous sources or visitors.

However, political observers interpreted the denial as a “soft message,” signaling Berri’s willingness to explore behind-the-scenes compromises, despite his public opposition to the current approach.

Hezbollah sources warn of escalation

Speaking to The Cradle, sources from Hezbollah stated that the government’s decision “is impossible to implement,” adding that the group is “prepared for any confrontation, even to the death.” The sources warned that the party has intelligence indicating that foreign actors are supplying weapons to rival Lebanese factions at a time when Hezbollah is being asked to disarm – a “deeply suspicious contradiction,” they said.

Lebanon’s political and security landscape now stands at a critical juncture. From security escalations to political rifts, mistrust runs deep among stakeholders. External pressures continue to mount, and today’s Cabinet session may mark a pivotal turning point – either toward a tenuous and conditional calm, or toward a broader political implosion that could spill into the streets.

Sovereignty vs submission: Cabinet splits wide open

During Tuesday’s session, Lebanese Minister of Public Health, Rakan Nassereddine, led the charge against the American diktat, calling it a blatant infringement on Lebanon’s sovereignty. He defended Berri’s proposal as a realistic path rooted in domestic consensus, and warned against placing the army in an impossible position. “Should we entrust the army with the task of disarmament when we are not even providing it with a comprehensive armament plan?” he asked.

On the opposing side, Minister of Justice Adel Nassar argued it was time to end the “logic of exception” and warned that continued tolerance of arms outside the state framework would lead Lebanon to total isolation. Minister Hanin Sayyed echoed this sentiment, saying further delay would trap Lebanon in a “vicious cycle of crises.”

Attempting to bridge the divide, Minister of Environment Tamara el-Zein proposed a phased national dialogue that would produce a comprehensive defense strategy, one inclusive of all parties and designed to safeguard national security. 

Final statement escalates tensions, ministers walk out 

Despite attempts at compromise, the session ended with Prime Minister Salam reading a statement assigning the Lebanese army to draft a disarmament plan to be presented to the Council of Ministers by the end of August and implemented by the end of the year. The move provoked immediate backlash. Administrative Development Minister Fadi Makki objected to the timeline as premature, noting the plan was being ratified without clarity on the army’s actual capacity.

Clarifying his position, Minister Mekki later elaborated on X, writing:

“My position stems from a firm conviction that these discussions must be conducted with calm and responsibility, in a manner that safeguards the interests of all Lebanese, protects their legitimate concerns, and is consistent with the ministerial statement to which we committed, regarding the extension of the state’s authority over all its territories and the restriction of the possession of weapons to its legitimate forces, in exchange for a cessation of Israeli hostilities, a full withdrawal from the occupied territories, and the return of prisoners.”

Both Nassereddine and Zein walked out of the meeting in protest, denouncing the decision as an “ambush against national consensus” and an “implicit adoption of the American agenda.”

Hezbollah responds: This is a foreign project

In response, Hezbollah issued a statement, condemning Prime Minister Salam for committing “a grave sin by adopting a decision that strips Lebanon of the weapons of resistance against the Israeli enemy. This weakens Lebanon’s strength and position in the face of the ongoing American-Israeli aggression and grants Israel what it failed to achieve during its assault on Lebanon.” 

Circles close to Hezbollah inform The Cradle that the movement considered Salam to be acting as a “foreign spokesperson,” and that his speech did not take into account internal balances or the specifics of the current situation. The circles describe the decision to assign the army without national consensus as “a threat to the mandate and a danger to the army institution itself.”

The sources add that the party would have preferred the final statement to include a reference to a national defense strategy that would preserve the resistance and regulate its relationship with the state, rather than proceeding toward a “delusional dismantling of the arsenal.”

National Charter or internal rupture: Hezbollah sets its red line

Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Naim Qassem made the party’s position unmistakable when he asserted that “the weapons issue is a national charter issue that can only be decided by national consensus, just as is the case with amending the constitution.” Party circles interpreted this position as a direct message to the government and army that “any unilateral step will explode internally.”

“Just as the sectarian system cannot be amended without consensus, weapons cannot be tampered with without comprehensive national consensus. Any decision taken by vote is null and void under the constitution and does not bind the party to anything,” party sources affirm to The Cradle.

Aoun treads cautiously as army faces internal strain

Sources close to Baabda Palace reveal to The Cradle that President Aoun is handling the issue with deliberate caution, consulting closely with Speaker Berri to secure political cover. They argue that positioning the army at the helm of a defense strategy does not mean placing it in direct confrontation with the resistance, but rather empowering it to articulate a security vision compatible with internal stability.

According to informed sources, Hezbollah conveyed to Aoun a specific position when Sheikh Qassem indicated that “the decision of war and peace is in the hands of the state.” This is a rare concession that, if leveraged wisely, could anchor a national consensus. 

But the same sources warned that weaponizing this stance to pressure the resistance could fracture the army: “Any attempt to use this position as a pressure tool could lead to a rift within the army itself, especially since a third of it comes from the resistance community.”

Domestic issue, not a foreign file

Hezbollah sources state that “The issue is Lebanese-Lebanese par excellence, and it must remain so. Foreign powers do not possess a magic solution; they only seek their own interests. As for those who are betting on an American or French role to resolve the arms issue, they are delusional and do not understand the dynamics of internal balances.”

The sources emphasize that the threat to internationalize the issue or turn it into a conflict between the army and the resistance “will not pass,” and describe those who adopt this approach as either “naive or involved in a project to overthrow the state.”

“We have an arsenal capable of withstanding a three-year war, according to our enemies’ estimates. But we don’t want war; we want national partnership. We refuse to let the army become an adversary or a tool. Dialogue is the only way, and there is still time to correct mistakes.”

Lebanon’s moment of reckoning

The state is deeply fractured: a government driven by external agendas, a presidency maneuvering among rival poles, a prime minister echoing foreign demands, and a resistance movement drawing a firm line around the country’s sovereignty and security doctrine. 

The confrontation is no longer about weapons alone. It is about who defines the Lebanese state, who protects it, and who it ultimately serves. Any attempt to impose a unilateral outcome on the arms question will not only violate the constitutional fabric, but it risks triggering an implosion from which no institution will emerge unscathed.