A Pretext for Israeli War? Three Scenarios for the Future of Hezbollah’s Weapons

Hezbollah is treading a murky line when it comes to the future of its arsenal, as U.S. and Israeli pressure mounts on the Lebanese army to resolve the longstanding and contentious issue of the group’s weapons, especially after the latest flare-up between Beirut and Tel Aviv.

While the group maintains that its weapons are not up for surrender, it has hinted at potential coordination with the Lebanese army—on one condition: a full Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory.

From Hezbollah’s perspective, such a withdrawal can only be secured through force; it means that the group is not ready to give up the strategic gains it has amassed over decades, with significant backing from Iran. Those gains took a hit after Hezbollah joined Operation al-Aqsa in support of Gaza.

So when Reuters quoted a senior, unnamed Hezbollah official on April 10, 2025, saying the group is open to arms talks with President Joseph Aoun as part of a national defense strategy, it raised eyebrows and questions.

Was this an unprecedented shift? A sign the group might disarm after years of staunch resistance? Despite the shockwaves, the same official made it clear: no discussion without key preconditions, including “Israel” pulling out from five disputed border points and halting its airstrikes.

President Aoun later confirmed Hezbollah has shown “a lot of flexibility” regarding weapons talks, and Lebanese sources say a direct dialogue is in the works, deepening the ambiguity.

Is Hezbollah really preparing to hand over its weapons to a weakened state military? Or is it playing along rhetorically while keeping its arsenal intact? Could this be a strategic pause as the group regroups and waits for a shift in regional dynamics?

Adding to the confusion is a sharp split in interpretation. Some in the pro-resistance camp say the discussion is limited to arms south of the Litani River. Others (mainly Hezbollah’s critics) argue it concerns disarmament across all of Lebanon.

For now, Hezbollah’s signals remain as cryptic as ever, leaving observers guessing: compromise, co-option, or clever maneuver?

Is Hezbollah Ready to Disarm? 

What’s the real story behind Hezbollah’s weapons? The fog around this thorny issue thickened after Prime Minister Nawaf Salam made a striking announcement on April 9, from none other than Bkerki, the heart of the Maronite establishment, staunchly opposed to the group. Salam declared that adding Hezbollah’s arms to the Cabinet’s agenda is now imminent.

That, coupled with President Joseph Aoun’s reference to a “specific timetable” and praise for Hezbollah’s “positive stance,” fueled speculation that the government is taking serious steps toward tackling the weapons file.

But Hezbollah sources were quick to cool the optimism. The “flexibility” Aoun spoke of, they say, refers only to the group’s willingness to discuss its arms within a broader national defense strategy, not under any fixed timeline or intention to surrender them.

Hezbollah MPs and officials have publicly reinforced that line. MP Hassan Fadlallah and senior political council member Ghaleb Abu Zeinab both stressed the weapons are not on the table for handover. According to al-Quds al-Arabi, insiders close to the party insist no official has ever spoken of “disarmament” or “weapons handover”—terms the group firmly rejects.

Instead, Hezbollah frames its stance as readiness for dialogue over how to enhance Lebanon’s defense capabilities, particularly against the Israeli Occupation. Resistance, they argue, has been a cornerstone of Lebanese strength for over four decades.

Still, no matter where Hezbollah really stands on the issue, the landscape may be shifting. President Aoun, a former army chief, is said to be eyeing the moment to pressure the group, especially after its recent military setbacks and shifting regional dynamics.

According to leaks reported by the Gulf-aligned Asas Media, the U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus delivered a blunt message during her second visit to Beirut: the disarmament of Hezbollah must begin soon.

Since her visit, sources say Lebanese authorities have been working more actively to move from planning to action. The Lebanese army has reportedly advanced in the south, reclaiming camps on the northern banks of the Litani River, areas Hezbollah once refused to hand over.

Ortagus, it’s said, conveyed a clear list of sites the Lebanese army must control to complete its deployment south of the Litani, as part of what some describe as the “final phase” of state consolidation in that region.

North of the river, Hezbollah had consistently blocked army access to its bases—until a “firm message” was delivered. The army and officials have now put the group in a corner, says Asas Media, suggesting that Hezbollah is being presented with a new, unavoidable reality.

So, is disarmament truly on the table? Or is this all political theatre? For now, the lines remain blurred, and the truth may lie somewhere between pressure, posture, and long-term positioning.

Three Scenarios for Hezbollah’s Weapons

Hezbollah’s opponents envision three potential scenarios for the fate of the group’s weapons. The first is dialogue, initiated by President Joseph Aoun, seeking to reach an agreement with Hezbollah on a timeline for disarmament. This falls under what the president has described as a “national security strategy,” reaffirming that weapons must be held exclusively by the state.

The second scenario points to the inevitability of swift disarmament, as no international aid or reconstruction will proceed without restricting arms possession both north and south of the Litani River.

The third envisions continued conflict: Israeli Occupation’s ongoing strikes on Hezbollah, possible retaliation, and a return to full-scale war. In this scenario, U.S. backing for “Israel” could escalate into a major offensive from the Bekaa Valley aimed at forcibly dismantling Hezbollah’s arsenal.

Reports suggest that international military assistance will be significantly increased to bolster the Lebanese Army's position. President Aoun appears determined to usher Lebanon into a new phase of security and political governance.

A source from Hezbollah told AFP on April 12, 2025, that the Lebanese Army now controls the majority of the group’s military sites south of the Litani River—having taken over approximately 190 out of 265 positions. This shift comes after a ceasefire in November 2024 forced Hezbollah to retreat northward, allowing both the army and UN peacekeepers (UNIFIL) to deploy.

With the army close to dismantling Hezbollah’s remaining southern outposts, Washington has been emboldened to push harder for full disarmament.

A recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies claims that Hezbollah has lost most of its elite “Radwan Force” fighters. According to the study, Israeli operations have eliminated the leadership of this unit and killed at least 1,000 out of its estimated 2,500 members.

Western military sources estimate Hezbollah’s total losses at more than 7,000 fighters from a force of around 30,000.

Despite these losses, Hezbollah’s arsenal remains sizable, with an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 missiles—figures echoed by the Council on Foreign Relations and Defense Now.

Under Pressure?

Hezbollah’s recent statement—albeit made through an unnamed source and without an official declaration—offering to “discuss the future of its weapons” without explicitly mentioning disarmament, broke one of the group’s most longstanding taboos.

This unexpected shift came amid mounting U.S. pressure and growing hostility from local and regional Maronite actors aligned with normalization efforts toward “Israel.”

Notably, the announcement came just four days after U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus visited Lebanon. During her April 6 interview with LBCI, she declared that Hezbollah must be disarmed; a message that may have directly prompted the group’s unusually conciliatory tone.

This raised critical questions: Is Hezbollah truly prepared to enter negotiations that could end its long-held security autonomy? Or is this merely a political maneuver to gain time? How realistic is the hope for a national defense strategy that integrates Hezbollah’s weapons under state control?

According to a report published April 10, 2025, by the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), the pressure on Hezbollah has forced its fragmented and weakened leadership to make temporary adjustments to its strategy and methods.

Author Orna Mizrahi argued that the group’s willingness to talk is aimed at relieving external pressure so it can focus on restoring its military capabilities.

She noted that Hezbollah’s position remained vague, pointing to the group’s declared openness to dialogue, conditioned on “Israel” withdrawing from southern Lebanon and halting its attacks. The ambiguity, however, didn’t last long.

In a televised interview with al-Jadeed Channel on April 9, Hezbollah political council member Ghaleb Abu Zeinab clarified: “We did not agree to hand over or relinquish our weapons.”

“We are open to discussions about how Lebanon can preserve its strength amid major regional changes. But this weapon is not up for negotiation.”

Mizrahi, in a previous April 2 report, had argued that the election of Joseph Aoun as president and the appointment of Nawaf Salam as prime minister offered “Israel” a strategic opportunity to press for Hezbollah’s disarmament.

She acknowledged, however, that the primary concern for Aoun and Salam remains Lebanon’s economic collapse, not a direct confrontation with Hezbollah, which remains focused on preserving its military influence.

Dream or Delusion?

According to Lebanese sources who spoke to Al-Estiklal, Hezbollah’s declared principles rule out any break from the ideology of “resistance,” a belief system deeply bound to its weapons.

Therefore, any talk of disarmament remains a “dream” unlikely to materialize—perhaps even more of an illusion than a realistic prospect, serving merely as a topic for debate.

The sources indicated that the group is currently focused on rebuilding itself, restructuring its leadership, restoring its capabilities, and making temporary adjustments to its strategy and operations, with an eye toward regaining its strength and maintaining its stance as a counterforce to Israeli Occupation.

“The regional conflict shows no signs of resolution, with wars expanding and Israel pushing to impose a ‘Greater Israeli Middle East’ not just on Lebanon, but on the entire Arab world, as seen in its attacks on Syria, Gaza, Yemen, and Iran,” the sources said.

Political analyst Elias al-Zoghbi described Hezbollah’s insistence on linking disarmament to specific conditions as something that empties any upcoming dialogue of substance, turning it into mere folklore and hollow promises.

The U.S.-based Alhurra quoted al-Zoghbi as saying that Hezbollah’s arms are not subject to its own conditions, but rather to the outcome of the ongoing Iranian-American dialogue.

“Based on the results of that dialogue, it receives directives from Tehran on the appropriate stance. Until then, Hezbollah is stalling to gain time,” he added.

On the other hand, political analyst Ghassan Saoud told Anadolu Agency on April 9, 2025, that “the Lebanese state will not be dragged into the trap of disarming Hezbollah in order to avoid a direct confrontation, and President Aoun remains committed to dialogue despite American pressure.”

Lebanese political analyst Alain Sarkis also downplayed the potential of any dialogue with Hezbollah over its disarmament.

He stated that such efforts are “a waste of time,” as they lack any concrete timeline, especially in light of repeated declarations by the group’s senior figures that their weapons are not up for negotiation.

“The Lebanese state is in an unenviable position. On one hand, it cannot disarm Hezbollah at the pace Washington desires, and on the other, it remains wary of the group, which continues to hold power despite Israel having destroyed much of its arsenal.”