Lebanon Sets In Motion Plan to Disarm Hezbollah, Army Outlines Three Scenarios

Lebanon’s government formally endorsed the army’s plan to disarm Hezbollah, a development officials describe as a watershed moment in the country’s bid to reclaim sovereignty over decisions of war and peace. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are expected to begin implementing the plan this year, part of what officials call a pivotal moment for reuniting the state with its institutions after years of conflict, external influence and internal blocs.

The decision comes amid a cascade of regional shifts that have altered the balance of power in Lebanon. Israel’s long-standing occupation of five hilltops in the south has complicated any move toward demilitarization, while the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria—long a sponsor of Hezbollah and Iran’s ally—removed one of the militia’s critical regional backstops. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have signaled there is no turning back on the plan, even as Hezbollah leadership and allied factions criticized or resisted the move. Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Naim Qassem, implicitly warned that violence could accompany any effort to disarm, and a number of Shia ministers loyal to the group and its ally Amal withdrew from the cabinet meeting where the plan was approved. The central question now is how the army will actually carry out the disarmament without triggering civil strife or eroding public support.

In a detailed account drawn from a discussion with Gen. Rodolphe Haykal, the commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces, the plan’s architecture is described as a three-pronged approach with a blueprint and timetable for each scenario. The first scenario assumes no cooperation from Hezbollah and no concessions from Israel, which continues to occupy border areas and to demand a buffer zone as part of what its defense ministry has framed as deterrence to protect northern communities from rocket fire. The second scenario envisions a variant of the status quo: the army would dismantle Hezbollah’s military infrastructure south of the Litani River, while Hezbollah appears to tolerate the arrangement and Israel maintains its positions. The third scenario imagines Hezbollah transitioning to a regular political party without guns and Israel consenting to the U.S.-backed plan while vacating Lebanese territory. In Beirut’s political reality, few expect the third outcome to materialize, given Hezbollah’s long tying of its weapons to group identity and Lebanon’s sectarian balance.

Despite the clarity of the plan, most observers in Lebanon view the first scenario as the most dangerous. A clash between the LAF and Hezbollah would carry a heavy political and security cost, potentially eroding support for the state from the very communities the army must protect. Still, the LAF’s current capabilities have strengthened in recent years through U.S. military assistance, even as Hezbollah has faced its own setbacks. Haykal and his staff intend to execute the plan in a way that minimizes risk, but the timetable for a full disarmament is not short. He estimated that even in a best-case, cooperative scenario, the army could require 12 to 16 months to fully dismantle Hezbollah’s military infrastructure. That timeline underscores the need for a significant infusion of resources, not least to sustain a larger force along Lebanon’s borders and to modernize intelligence, surveillance and data analysis capabilities.

To that end, U.S. support has grown more concrete. Haykal has briefed U.S. officials in Beirut and Washington about the plan, a process that has included discussions with Morgan Ortagus, the U.S. deputy special envoy, and Admiral Bradley Cooper, the commander of U.S. Central Command, who have met with him to review the army’s needs. The Pentagon recently approved roughly $14.2 million in military aid to bolster the LAF’s capacity to deploy more troops along Lebanon’s southern and eastern borders, improve intelligence and data-analysis systems, and expand the use of unmanned aerial assets, as well as to provide additional tactical and reconnaissance vehicles and helicopters. The assistance is framed as a critical component of the plan’s feasibility, and supporters argue that it is essential not only for Lebanon’s security but also for broader regional stability and U.S. interests in preventing a relapse into full-blown conflict.

At the core of the plan lies a political and security calculus: the center of gravity is the Lebanese army’s ability to guarantee stability in a country that is religiously diverse and porous to regional pressures. If the LAF cannot perform this mission, the historic decision to pursue disarmament could be undone by violence, political fragmentation or external meddling. The Israeli dimension remains pivotal. Washington has urged Tel Aviv to align with the Lebanese plan as part of a broader strategy to reduce armed flashpoints along the border. Without Israel’s cooperation, Haykal’s task could become markedly more difficult, as Israeli actions would continue to shape the security environment in southern Lebanon and influence public support for disarmament among Shia communities.

Historically, Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon’s security dynamics is complicated. The group played a central part in mobilizing resistance that helped force Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon in 2000, but its leadership has long resisted the relinquishment of arms, arguing that they are essential for Lebanon’s defense and a guarantor of political leverage for Shia communities that have faced marginalization. Critics of the group argue that its weapons undermine state sovereignty and have contributed to cycles of violence and regional entanglement. Proponents of the plan say that a structured, U.S.-backed approach—coupled with robust international oversight and a credible security council-like mechanism—could gradually redefine the militia’s role and reduce the likelihood of wider conflagration.

The plan aims to be concrete but it is not guaranteed to succeed. It requires broad political support within Lebanon’s fractious parliament and among regional actors, significant funding for the LAF’s expanded border security and internal-security missions, and a credible path to an orderly transition that preserves civil peace. The international dimension—especially U.S. backing and Israeli cooperation—will continue to shape the feasibility and pace of disarmament. In the days ahead, Lebanon’s leaders will be tested on their ability to translate a historic political decision into a practical, secure, and sustainable process that reduces the risk of renewed conflict while preserving the country’s fragile pluralism.