• Lebanese army says it has dismantled more than 90 percent of Hezbollah’s infrastructure south of the Litani River

Anan Tello

LONDON: Lebanon’s armed forces say they have taken control of several villages near the border with Israel that had long been held by the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia. But behind these official declarations is a more complicated reality — and a fragile peace that may not hold.

On April 30, the Lebanese army announced it had dismantled more than 90 percent of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure south of the Litani River, near the Israeli border. The operation followed a ceasefire in late November between Israel and the militia.

That same day, President Joseph Aoun told Sky News Arabia that the army had deployed across 85 percent of southern Lebanon.

He emphasized that efforts to remove weapons not under state control were taking place nationwide, although the “priority is the southern part of the country” — Hezbollah’s stronghold.

“The army, despite its limited resources, is deployed across the entire Lebanese territory, inside the country as well as at the east, north, northeast, and south borders,” Aoun said.

About two weeks later, at the Arab League Summit in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam reaffirmed Lebanon’s commitment to implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701 — the framework for the current truce.

But enforcing that commitment comes with its own set of challenges.

“The president and prime minister’s affirmation of Lebanon’s monopoly on force is a step in the right direction,” Fadi Nicholas Nassar, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Arab News. “But its promise fades the moment Hezbollah’s open defiance goes unchallenged.”

He said the ceasefire offered a prime opportunity to disarm Hezbollah, which continues to resist full disarmament during Israel’s ongoing occupation of parts of Lebanon.

“The ceasefire agreement that ended the war must be framed, not as a de-escalation, but as a decisive window for Lebanon to complete Hezbollah’s disarmament — anything less risks another military confrontation Lebanon cannot afford,” he added.

Israel continues to occupy five hilltop positions it deems strategic, despite a Feb. 18 deadline for withdrawal. Aoun said this has prevented the Lebanese army from fully deploying along the border.

Aoun said Lebanon had asked the US and France, the ceasefire’s guarantors, to pressure Israel to pull out. In a recent interview with Egyptian channel ON E, he said Israel’s occupation of the five sites is a major obstacle to border control.

“We are in constant contact with the US to urge it to pressure Israel,” he said, stressing that Lebanon is seeking a durable truce — not normalization of ties.

While Hezbollah has avoided further escalation, its deputy leader Naim Qassem said in February that Israel must withdraw completely, saying “there is no pretext for five points nor other details.”

“Hezbollah has taken serious hits,” Nassar said. “It’s lost much of its arsenal and key figures in its leadership, both vital to its ability to adapt and survive.”

Despite this, “it’s still a disciplined, ideologically driven force that can threaten to derail the progress unfolding across the Levant,” he added.

The recent conflict was triggered by the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 240 were taken hostage. After Israel retaliated by launching airstrikes and ground incursions against Gaza, Hezbollah began rocket attacks on Israel from the north.

By autumn 2024, the cross-border exchanges had escalated into full-scale war. Over the course of the conflict, Israeli airstrikes killed more than 3,800 Lebanese, injured about 15,700, and displaced nearly 1 million, according to Lebanese health authorities.

The World Bank put Lebanon’s economic losses at $14 billion. Hezbollah, meanwhile, suffered heavy losses to its leadership, fighters, weapons, and public support.

A ceasefire was reached on Nov. 27, brokered by Washington and Paris. Anchored in UN Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war, the deal called for Israel’s full withdrawal and for Hezbollah to relocate fighters north of the Litani River and dismantle all military sites in the south.

However, six months on, Israel still occupies Jal Al-Deir and Jabal Blat in Bint Jbeil district, Labbouneh and Alma Al-Shaab in Tyre, and Hamames Hill and a newly built outpost along the Markaba-Houla road in Marjayoun.

An Israeli military spokesperson said their troops “need to remain at those points at the moment to defend Israeli citizens, to make sure this process is complete and eventually hand it over to the Lebanese armed forces,” Reuters reported.

The UN high commissioner for human rights raised the alarm in April over the increase in Israeli offences since the ceasefire began. At least 71 civilians have been killed and critical infrastructure destroyed, according to a preliminary OHCHR review.

Aoun also reported nearly 3,000 Israeli ceasefire breaches.

Meanwhile, Israel said at least five rockets, two mortars, and a drone have been launched from Lebanon toward northern Israel since the ceasefire.

“Israel should stop carrying out strikes in Lebanon immediately,” David Wood, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, told Arab News. “The whole point of the ceasefire deal was to empower the Lebanese army to exert control over all Lebanese territory, to the exclusion of Hezbollah.”

He said that continued Israeli attacks risk undermining state authority and bolstering Hezbollah’s narrative.

“Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon, even as the army makes progress on implementing the agreement, threaten to undermine the state’s authority,” he said. “Especially in areas facing constant assaults, locals might increasingly view Hezbollah’s armed resistance as their only effective defense against Israeli aggression.”

While Hezbollah has cooperated with army efforts south of the Litani, it refuses to disarm elsewhere until Israel leaves Lebanese soil. Hezbollah chief Qassem insists only his forces can defend Lebanon.

“Lebanese officials are satisfied that Hezbollah is cooperating with the disarmament process in the area south of the Litani River, which is next to the Lebanese-Israeli border,” Wood said.

“However, Hezbollah refuses to surrender its weapons in the rest of the country, at least until Lebanon’s various political factions have entered into dialogue concerning a new national defense strategy.”

Disarmament is a key demand from the US, Qatar, and other foreign donors. But Lebanese authorities prefer dialogue to confrontation, wary of igniting civil conflict or scaring off badly needed investment.

“Lebanon’s new president and government have made clear that, when it comes to Hezbollah’s disarmament, they prefer cooperation over confrontation,” Wood said.

“They want to achieve the state’s monopoly over arms yet also avoid a potentially dangerous clash between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah.”

Last month, Aoun said the decision to limit the monopoly on weaponry to the state “has been made” and will be carried out “through dialogue, not force.”

Still, international pressure on Lebanon is mounting.

“Lebanon faces growing pressure — chiefly from the US, Israel, and some of Hezbollah’s domestic opponents — to accelerate the disarmament process, even without Hezbollah’s approval,” Wood said.

Last week, Morgan Ortagus, the deputy US special envoy to the Middle East, said Lebanon has “more work to do” to fully disarm Hezbollah, despite making more progress in the past six months than in the previous 15 years.

“We in the US have called for the full disarmament of Hezbollah. And so that doesn’t mean just south of the Litani. That means in the whole country,” Ortagus told the Qatar Economic Forum.

Aoun, however, cautioned against moving too quickly. He reiterated in his interview with Egypt’s ON E that Hezbollah’s disarmament should proceed through dialogue, not confrontation.

Makram Rabah, an assistant professor at the American University of Beirut, said the army is not expected to “engage in a physical clash with Hezbollah.” Even so, he warned, the state must stop clinging to the notion that disarmament depends solely on Hezbollah’s cooperation.

“The government should stop promoting the idea that disarming Hezbollah requires dialogue — that it only requires coordination with Hezbollah for them to hand over their weapons,” Rabah told Arab News. “If they refuse to do so, they will have to deal with Israel.”

He said Lebanese authorities are failing to meet their obligations under Resolution 1701. “The president of the republic was elected on a platform of establishing full sovereignty, and up until now, he has failed to do so.”

Elaborating, Rabah said the core problem lies in the government’s reliance on consensus — a strategy, he argued, that plays directly into Hezbollah’s hands.

“It’s clear that Hezbollah’s weapons — which are Iranian in nature — have exposed and devastated Lebanon,” he said. “Once the government starts acting like a real government, there will be no justification for Israel to maintain a physical presence in Lebanon.

“Israel’s continued airstrikes serve as a reminder to the Lebanese authorities that they are failing to do their job,” he added, stressing that “it’s not a question of capability — it’s a question of will.

“Frankly, I don’t think the Lebanese leadership is even serious about confronting the issue, because they expect Israel to handle it for them. And that, ultimately, is deeply damaging to Lebanon as a sovereign state.”