Alwaght- These days, the debate over Lebanon's defense strategy is stirring controversy, and despite its beautiful, rational, and convincing title, it is actually a codename for advancing a plot to disarm Hezbollah.
Since the time President Joseph Aoun during his swearing talked about the need to draw a defense strategy with highlight of limitation of the arms in the hands of the government and the army, particular political factions and media outlets close to them with direction of Western embassies have tied defense strategy to disarmament of Hezbollah. Reacting to this stance, several Hezbollah leaders have so far come against these targeted political and media attacks.
Earlier, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said in an interview that "the Lebanese government has decided that weapons will be only in the hands of the government, but there are discussions on how to implement this decision." He noted that "these talks are taking place in the form of "bilateral dialogue" between the presidency and Hezbollah."
The issue of a defense strategy has been on the agenda of the authorities since the presidency of Michel Suleiman and is not a new topic. Hezbollah has also said that it is not opposed to formulating a defense strategy in any way and is even willing to cooperate with the government on the issue. However, no sensible government, given having an aggressive and occupying foreign enemy like the Israeli regime, would put down its most important defense shield under the guise of a high-sounding title and expose itself to the threat of an enemy attack and the loss of territory; especially in a situation where the Israelis are still unwilling to withdraw from parts of southern Lebanon in violation of the ceasefire agreement and its officials are openly talking about continuing an unlimited presence in these areas.
Also, remarks of Hezbollah officials suggest that the Lebanese government should not fall in the trap of home and foreign enemies of the nation's stability and independence and as a national necessity, aim the defense strategy against the Israeli occupation not the Hezbollah's arms that serve security of citizens and territorial integrity.
In this connection, Sheikh Ali al-Khatib, deputy speaker of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council in Lebanon, stressed that "a defense strategy is necessary that is guided by the interests of Lebanon and requires dialogue with the resistance." He noted that "the resistance defends Lebanon and the Lebanese, while others were carrying weapons for foreign purposes."
Hassan Fadhlallah, a member of the Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc, voiced Hezbollah's readiness for dialogue, especially on the defense strategy, but only after achieving a set of priorities like stopping Israeli attacks, liberating land, releasing prisoners, and reconstructing damaged areas. He noted that dialogue is underway with those who believe in these priorities, in order to "achieve a defense strategy that protects Lebanon's sovereignty."
Also, Mahmoud Ghomati, a member of Hezbollah's political council, stated that "we will discuss the defense strategy when the conditions are right," adding, "while the enemy is still on our soil, we are not willing to discuss the defense strategy with the president through the media."
American pressures on Lebanese government
Washington's current strategy in Lebanon is a mix of three main instruments: Political pressure through institutional influence in Lebanon, cognitive warfare, and close military coordination with the Israeli regime. Washington is aware that despite claims of Hezbollah opponents about it becoming weak after the war, the resistance movement remains one of the strong active actors in Lebanon's complicated political arena. Therefore, the Americans are striving to implement a scenario they failed to implement through war.
The intense political attacks on Hezbollah aimed at pressuring the movement to disarm have mainly tied implementation of the ceasefire agreement to disarmament, which is often expressed in official statements by Morgan Ortagus, the US deputy special envoy for the Middle East, according to which the US declares disarmament as a key component of achieving a lasting ceasefire.
State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said at a press conference on March 28 that "as part of the cessation of hostilities agreement, the Government of Lebanon is responsible for disarming Hezbollah, and we expect the Lebanese Armed Forces to disarm these terrorists in order to prevent further conflict.”
These positions, which reveal Washington’s most important goal at this stage, namely the disarmament of the resistance, are said solely to mislead the public opinion, given the fact that there is no mention of Hezbollah’s disarmament in the ceasefire agreement.
In fact, in addition to official diplomacy, the US and its allies have waged a covert war in the cognitive and media spheres aimed at undermining Hezbollah’s legitimacy and support base. This cognitive campaign operates through media messages, psychological operations, and discourse shaping in Lebanon and the wider Middle East. It aims to undermine Hezbollah’s narrative as a successful “resistance” force and to convince the Lebanese people that the country would be safer and better off without the resistance.
Washington's strategy towards Lebanon and Hezbollah clearly shows that the US does not view the issue of weapons of Hezbollah solely on the basis of protecting Lebanese stability or supporting the state’s sovereignty, but as part of its broader strategic project in the region, which is based on preventing the emergence of any force that could threaten Israeli supremacy. In fact, by disarming Hezbollah, the US seeks to achieve the complete surrender of Lebanon in favor of the security and political interests of the Israeli regime. What is happening in Lebanon is simply part of an integrated American system that has worked for decades to eliminate every independent regional power in order to create a modern colonial reality whose motto is: “There should be no power in the Middle East except Israel.” This, according to observers, is the essence of American policy in the region and the real basis for all the economic, political, military and media pressures that Lebanon faces today.
This war is not just against Hezbollah, but against the idea of resistance and against the people's power to protect themselves and shape their future based on their free will. Therefore, confronting this project is not only military, but also public, political, economic, and vital to preserving Lebanon's identity, sovereignty, and independence. The US wants a region without resistance, and the answer starts here: Lebanon is not for sale, and the weapons of resistance cannot be sold or handed over at a negotiating table whose terms are written in Tel Aviv and Washington.
Hezbollah chief pours cold water on disarmament idea
Amid various reactions by forces affiliated with the resistance, it was at the end of the road the Hezbollah chief who poured cold water on the hands of all whose promoting the disarmament idea, showing that as ever and based on a national approach to save the country's interests, Hezbollah is ready to talk with the government to advance the country's defense base, but it will not give in to the pressures.
In his speech, Sheikh Naim Qassem addressed the misconceptions of Westerners and some domestic opposition forces about the weapon of the resistance movement and clarified that the resistance is a popular reaction and response to the occupation and constant attacks and threats of the Israeli regime, especially when Lebanon did not have a powerful army that could defend the land and lives of its citizens against this regime. In other words, the weapon of resistance is actually the weapon of all the Lebanese people who, in the absence of a powerful defense force, have come to the aid of the government and the army against the constant Israeli aggressions.
Hezbollah head reminded all that the ceasefire the Americans are pressing the government for and calling for Hezbollah disarmament under is actually a product of resistance.
"If the resistance had not stood up, there would have been no agreement. If the resistance had not resisted, Israel would have continued its aggression to achieve its goals. But it was the resistance that created deterrence," he said.
Another issue in the remarks of the Hezbollah head is the need not to be delighted with the promises of the US because, according to him, the main goal of the Israeli regime is to occupy large parts of Lebanon after the disarmament of the resistance.
He further maintained: "Let me tell you frankly that if you think that Israel wants to attack for a small piece of land, for a small advance or to solve an arms issue, you are delusional. Israel wants to occupy the largest part of Lebanon to annex it to occupied Palestine, to build settlements on Lebanese land, and to use Lebanon to settle Palestinians that it expels from the Israeli establishment of occupied Palestine. This is Israel's project."
With these comments, Hezbollah secretary-general set off the alarm of playing in the US-designed game under the codename of defense strategy that will not only lead to no security in Lebanon, but also will open the hands of the occupiers to execute their plans like what they are pursuing in Syria and Gaza. To support his remarks, he flashed back to 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon under the excuse of destroying the Palestinian Liberation Organization, but occupied parts of Lebanon for the next 18 years.
He went on to point out Israel’s constant attacks on Lebanon and its repeated ceasefire violations over the past five months, showing that Israel’s aggression knows no boundaries.
“We, as a Lebanese state, reached an agreement with the enemy Israel. Isn't this agreement supposed to be the end of the aggression? That is usually the result of an agreement,” said Qassem, adding that "Israel no longer has any excuses, nevertheless, it has been attacking daily for five months, to the point where its attacks have reached more than 2,700, including killing, wounding, bulldozing, destroying, uprooting trees, flying drones, and aggression on land, sea, and air, in full view of the world.”
Hizbullah’s chief has so far rejected all arguments that consider the disarmament of the resistance as a step towards preserving peace with Israel, showing that this argument is neither supported by historical experience nor by the aggressive nature of the enemy.
He then addressed arguments that present the disarmament of the resistance movement as a step towards supporting the state's sovereignty and resolving political challenges.
He addressed those who called for implementation of Taif Agreement which calls for restriction of weapons to the government. He mentioned the main role of Hezbollah in the process of new government formation and full support to the political process, saying that Hezbollah's arms no longer influence government making. In fact, the Taif Agreement, which was reached in the 1980s to end Lebanon's bloody civil war, envisaged the disarmament of all internal armed factions as a way to prevent the failure of the political agreement project in the future, and now Hezbollah's secretary-general has rightly stressed that the weapons of resistance movement have basically nothing to do with Lebanon's internal developments, and Hezbollah played its constructive role in the process of forming a government with great flexibility.
He further said: "The constitution says that weapons are exclusively in the hands of the government, and we say that weapons are exclusively in the hands of the government , but which weapons? Weapons that protect citizens, weapons of internal security. As for the resistance, its weapons are exclusively related to confronting the Israeli enemy and have nothing to do with the interior of the country."
Finally, regarding the discussion of formulating a defense strategy, Hezbollah chief voiced the movement’s readiness to cooperate with the mechanism for determining how to negotiate this issue with the president, considering the timing of this issue to be in line with the interests of the Israeli regime and against the interests of Lebanon. He said: “Are we expected to discuss a defense strategy while the [Israeli] air force is flying over our heads and the occupation continues in the south, and while America is pressing us to negotiate under pressure and based on dictation? This is not a negotiation, this is a surrender. Let Israel first leave and stop its attacks, including airstrikes. This will be an important step for us to enter the discussion of a defense strategy.”
Reiterating that defense strategy has nothing to do with Hezbollah's weapons, Qassem made it clear to all of those behind the calls for disarmament that "we do not allow anybody to disarm Hezbollah or the resistance because Hezbollah and the resistance are the same. The idea of disarmament should be eliminated from the political vocab. We do not allow anybody to disarm the resistance. These weapons are the pillar of resistance. These weapons give us life and freedom. These weapons are what liberates our country and protects its sovereignty."
