Abu Sharif: Hezbollah’s weapons are a deterrent; No credence given to U.S. and Israeli guarantees

On Thursday, August 7, the Lebanese cabinet resumed its sessions, dedicating a significant part of the discussions to the controversial issue of “exclusive control over weapons.” This move, sparked strong protests from Hezbollah and its ally, the Amal Movement, headed by Nabih Berri, the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament.

In the end, while ministers from the Amal Movement and Hezbollah had left the session, the Lebanese cabinet approved the U.S. plan.

The U.S. plan requires the Lebanese army to begin disarming non-state actors by the end of August and to complete the operation within 90 days with logistical support from the U.S., France, and several Arab countries.

In this regard, Nasser Abu Sharif, a representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement in Tehran, spoke with Mizan to examine the dimensions and background of this American plan.

The Background of the U.S. plan to disarm Hezbollah

Abu Sharif said: The issue of disarming Hezbollah is not something that has emerged overnight. Some claim that Hezbollah’s weapons are one of the reasons behind the paralysis of the government and the persistence of problems. On the other hand, pressure from the U.S. and the West, alongside Israel and some Arab countries, has increased to advance a “roadmap” for disarming Hezbollah, naturally accompanied by promises such as financial aid and reconstruction.

The Islamic Jihad representative in Tehran stated: But if we are realistic and consider Lebanon’s real interests, we must not forget that Lebanon is on the front line of confrontation with Israel. Historical experience has shown that no guarantees—from the U.S., Israel, or Arab countries—are reliable. Therefore, rapid and forced disarmament without internal consensus and serious defense guarantees would leave Lebanon defenseless against external threats and could even lead to chaos.

The U.S. as the main actor in Lebanon’s events

The senior official of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement pointed out that the U.S. is the main actor behind these pressures and sees Hezbollah as a threat to its interests and, above all, to Israel’s security. He said Washington has explicitly made economic and political aid to Lebanon conditional on implementing a plan to disarm Hezbollah, with timing and penalties also discussed.

Abu Sharif added: Israel, which has always considered Hezbollah’s weapons a strategic threat, sees the 2024 war as a historic opportunity to end the resistance’s military power. Through repeated attacks and international pressure, Israel tries to force Hezbollah to disarm.

He emphasized: But the key point is that both the U.S. and Israel have a track record full of broken promises and deception regarding “guarantees,” and we have repeatedly seen that Lebanon’s interests and even its security are completely sacrificed when they conflict with Israeli interests or Western policies.

Hezbollah’s weapons: A deterrent tool against the Zionist Regime

The Islamic Jihad representative in Tehran referred to Hezbollah’s stance toward the recent cabinet move and said: Hezbollah’s positions reflect an important reality—that the party views its weapons as a “last line of defense” against an enemy that has never honored any treaty or agreement. Hezbollah’s weapons are both a deterrent and a trump card in regional negotiations.

The senior Islamic Jihad official stressed: Hezbollah says it is not willing to negotiate about its weapons as long as Israel does not fully withdraw and there are no real guarantees. This condition may seem heavy to some but stems from the same distrust toward Western “guarantees” that have always proven unreliable at critical moments.

Consequences of implementing Hezbollah’s disarmament

Abu Sharif, referring to the consequences of implementing the disarmament plan, said: If this plan is implemented without a real alternative, without national consensus, and without the immediate strengthening of the Lebanese army, Lebanon would effectively be defenseless against potential Israeli attacks or threats. Experience has also shown that Israel has repeatedly attacked Lebanon despite “international guarantees.”

He added: Of course, if the government can take control of weapons with internal agreement and real guarantees and simultaneously equip the army, Lebanon might in the long term emerge from isolation and experience economic prosperity. But the track record of the West and Arab countries in fulfilling promises is unclear and they often retreat at critical moments.

The Islamic Jihad representative stated: The worst-case scenario is that a part of society feels targeted or experiences an “existential defeat,” leading Lebanon into internal conflict or instability.

Public reactions in Lebanon to Hezbollah’s disarmament

Referring to popular reactions in Lebanon regarding Hezbollah’s disarmament, the Islamic Jihad official said: Lebanese society is traditionally divided as always; a large segment of society, some opposition parties, and even some Sunni and Druze groups support the idea that weapons should only be in the hands of the state and see this as essential for any reform and economic improvement.

He said: Conversely, Hezbollah and Amal supporters view disarmament as an American-Israeli project and a threat to their existence, and even among civil society, some fear that if this process proceeds rapidly and without dialogue, it could lead to internal conflict or chaos.

Abu Sharif summarized: In short, everyone knows Lebanon needs a strong and centralized government, but few are willing to entrust the country’s security fate to the guarantees of the U.S., Israel, or even Arab countries.