New disarmament push raises old question: How did Hezbollah keep its weapons?

Report by Maroun Nassif, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

Many Lebanese were surprised when Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s government tasked the Lebanese army with drafting a practical plan to ensure the state’s exclusive control over weapons by the end of 2025.

The surprise stems from the fact that the decision comes 35 years after the Taif Agreement, which ended Lebanon’s civil war and explicitly called for the dissolution of all militias.

Following the Taif Agreement, security and ministerial committees were formed to implement the disarmament process. By May and June 1991, most militias began handing over their weapons. 

The Lebanese Forces submitted part of their arsenal to the army and reportedly sold their heavy weapons to Croatia. The Amal Movement transferred its weapons to the Lebanese army, while the Progressive Socialist Party handed over its arms to the Syrian army.

Hezbollah, however, neither surrendered its weapons nor entered any discussions on disarmament. This raised a critical question: How did the group manage to retain its weapons after 1991?

On May 25, 2000, southern Lebanon was liberated from Israeli occupation. Just weeks later, in June, Syria's President Hafez al-Assad died. Yet Hezbollah remained the only armed group operating outside the authority of the state.

Today, with Israel demonstrating military and technological superiority over Hezbollah’s arsenal, the collapse of the Syrian regime—its main supply line—and the gradual withdrawal of key allies such as the Free Patriotic Movement from supporting the group’s weapons, a new question emerges: What margin of maneuver does Hezbollah still have to maintain its arms?