Hezbollah disarmament now possible as U.S. pressures Lebanon and Iran

Shift in Lebanon’s power dynamics and Iran-U.S. nuclear talks raise prospects of Hezbollah’s disarmament.

Protesters wave Lebanese Hezbollah flags during an anti-Israel rally at Enghelab (Revolution) Square in downtown Tehran, Iran, on April 11, 2025. Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/Nur

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

For decades, the idea of Hezbollah disarmament seemed implausible. The group was the only faction that refused to lay down arms after Lebanon’s brutal civil war and consistently portrayed itself as Lebanon’s front line against Israeli aggression. But now, analysts say that disarming Hezbollah may no longer be a distant dream—it may be within reach.

This historic shift follows more than a year of open conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, which severely weakened the group’s military and leadership core. That conflict began with Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israel in support of Hamas and ended with a devastating Israeli air and ground campaign across southern Lebanon. According to the International Crisis Group, the war marked a dramatic change in the political and military landscape.

“The war clearly changed the situation on the ground in Lebanon,” said David Wood, an analyst with the group. “It’s conceivable to think that Hezbollah could move towards disarmament and potentially even participate in that process willingly.”

A turning point after years of stalemate

In the aftermath of the war, Lebanon made unexpected political strides. After over two years of institutional paralysis, a president was elected and a new government formed. This alone represented a dramatic realignment of domestic power—one that significantly altered Hezbollah’s standing.

Hezbollah’s losses were staggering. Beyond a decimated weapons stockpile, the group also lost senior commanders, including its longtime figurehead Hassan Nasrallah. Its military dominance, once considered superior even to the Lebanese army, has been eroded. The November 27 ceasefire agreement, which called for Hezbollah’s withdrawal north of the Litani River and the dismantling of its military infrastructure in the south, marks an important milestone.

Lebanese forces have since taken control of roughly 190 of the 265 Hezbollah military sites in southern Lebanon. However, Israel continues to hold on to five strategic positions and conducts regular strikes on Hezbollah targets, undermining a full ceasefire and giving Hezbollah a pretext to keep some of its weapons.

U.S. pressure ramps up

The shift in military balance has coincided with increased U.S. diplomatic efforts. Visiting U.S. deputy special envoy for the Middle East Morgan Ortagus recently pushed Beirut to act, urging the Lebanese government to move toward Hezbollah disarmament “as soon as possible.”

At the same time, Washington is putting pressure on Tehran through renewed nuclear negotiations. President Donald Trump has threatened military action should talks fail, which could reshape Iran’s strategy in the region—including its support for Hezbollah. If Iran reduces its backing, Hezbollah may have no choice but to adapt to new regional realities.

According to Hanin Ghaddar, a fellow at The Washington Institute, the writing is already on the wall. “Hezbollah’s disarmament is inevitable,” she said. “The only alternative to the Lebanese state disarming the group is that Israel is going to do it militarily.”

Internal debate and reluctance within Hezbollah

Despite the mounting pressure, not all within Hezbollah are on board with disarmament. Ghaddar believes that figures like current leader Naim Qassem and parliamentary bloc chief Mohammed Raad are trying to stall. “They want to play the time game,” she said. “They want the group to survive as a military institution. The divisions are not about whether to give up arms but how and when.”

There is also the strategic dilemma: Hezbollah has long argued that it needs to retain weapons to protect Lebanon from Israeli incursions, particularly as Israel continues to hold territory and conduct operations in Lebanese territory. This reasoning still resonates with some segments of the Lebanese population, especially in the south.

A source close to Hezbollah, who requested anonymity, told AFP that Lebanon’s army still lacks the capability to defend the southern border, implying that Hezbollah’s weapons remain necessary. They accused the U.S. of pushing for the destruction—not transfer—of Hezbollah’s rockets to ensure the Lebanese army remains weak and dependent.

Roadblocks and scenarios ahead

David Wood of the International Crisis Group laid out a possible path: “Beirut could either dismantle Hezbollah’s military infrastructure entirely or seek to integrate its fighters and weapons into the regular army.” While the latter would allow Hezbollah to maintain some form of influence, it would bring their military wing under national control.

“The safest approach is to move cautiously and take time,” Wood added. “It is possible that Iran would seek to trade its support for regional allies, including Hezbollah, for concessions in negotiations with the U.S.”

Retired intelligence chief General Ali Shahrour echoed that sentiment, saying that Hezbollah has no interest in further military conflict—either with Israel or with the Lebanese state—after the scale of its losses. “It is certainly not in its interest to engage in any war or confrontation,” he noted.

Lebanon caught between Israel and Iran

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has made a clear statement: the state must have a monopoly on the use of force. He insists that a national dialogue is required to deal with the sensitive issue of Hezbollah’s weapons. But with U.S. and Israeli pressure mounting, time may not be on Lebanon’s side.

Karim Bitar, a Middle East lecturer at Sciences Po in Paris, sees the situation as a “chicken and egg” dilemma. “Should Hezbollah disarm first, or should Israel withdraw from all occupied positions first?” he asked. Bitar believes Hezbollah might agree to surrender some of its heavy weapons while denying responsibility for smaller arms held by affiliated groups or individuals. But full disarmament, he warned, won’t happen without an explicit green light from Tehran.

“In the absence of an Iranian green light,” Bitar said, “I doubt that Hezbollah would willingly relinquish its weapons, even if they’re offered to form an autonomous battalion within the Lebanese army.”

Historic but fragile opportunity

The opportunity to disarm Hezbollah, once unthinkable, is now a tangible possibility. Years of regional conflict, internal shifts in Lebanese politics, and renewed diplomatic efforts by the United States are converging to reshape the conversation. Still, the path forward is fraught with geopolitical risks.

Hezbollah’s disarmament would mark a turning point not just for Lebanon, but for the entire Middle East. The key lies in a complex triangle of negotiations—between Beirut, Tehran, and Washington. If they align, what once seemed impossible could become a reality. Until then, Hezbollah’s future remains suspended between war, politics, and diplomacy.