After months of devastating confrontation with Israel, Lebanon stands at a fateful crossroads. The country, battered economically, socially and infrastructurally, is torn between two opposing forces: the desire to rebuild and integrate into a new regional order, and the old chains of Hezbollah, which grips it from within.
Will Lebanon find the courage to change, to dismantle the weapons of “resistance" and to choose a diplomatic path? Or will it keep clinging to the past, a road that has led time and again to ruin?
2 View gallery
Members of the Lebanon‑based Shiite militia Hezbollah march in camouflage uniforms and carry the group’s yellow flag during a military parade in southern Lebanon, Aug. 18, 2017
(Photo: AP)
Could Lebanon join the Abraham Accords? The idea may sound far-fetched, but it is not impossible. The Abraham Accords reshaped the Middle East, bringing normalization, investment, security and openness. In Lebanon, however, any mention of normalization with Israel remains taboo. Joining the accords would require a decisive break from the ideology of “resistance,” and greater distance from Iran’s orbit.
Many Lebanese now recognize that wars and destruction have built no economy, provided no electricity and delivered no security. Some understand that the country’s survival depends less on military valor and more on political courage. If a bold leader emerges, supported by the Gulf states, the United States and France, an opportunity could rise from the ruins.
For now, formal entry into the Abraham Accords is unlikely. Hezbollah remains strong, the state is weak and society is fearful and fractured. The path to normalization, if it comes at all, will likely pass through an intermediate phase of non-belligerence, together with a security-coordination mechanism along the northern border.
Lebanon’s true test of courage lies in one defining question: does it have the unity and strength to disarm Hezbollah? The organization is no longer merely a “resistance movement,” it is a political, economic and social actor that effectively governs parts of southern Lebanon, holds substantial arsenals and shapes national defense policy. Yet it has become a burden, scaring off investors, obstructing reforms and keeping the country on the brink of conflict.
2 View gallery
Lebanese army soldiers man a checkpoint in southern Lebanon near the town of Nabatieh, May 24, 2025
(Photo: Mahmoud ZAYYAT / AFP)
Disarmament is not a technical step but a national transformation. It requires internal unity, political backing, and deep international engagement. Lebanon cannot achieve this alone. Without such a move, the state will remain bound to Hezbollah’s weapons, tools that preserve the organization’s power while crippling the country’s future.
A pragmatic first step may be gradual integration of Hezbollah into official institutions, under army supervision and without operational autonomy. It is a long path, but perhaps the only one that avoids another civil war.
The recent war did not destroy Hezbollah, but it wounded it deeply. The organization now seeks a revised identity, less as a fighting force and more as a political and social actor. It aims to rebrand itself as protector of the Shia community and rebuilder of the south, not solely as Israel’s militant adversary. Behind this façade, however, Hezbollah is working to preserve its military capacity and to reassert its presence along the northern border.
Its strategy is simple: maintain a “warm border” that justifies its existence without sliding into total war. In doing so, it keeps the threat alive and its relevance intact. Israel, for its part, recognizes this reality and is preparing the northern frontier for a prolonged period of deterrence, readiness and, perhaps one day, a regional framework that stabilizes the border.
Munir DahirOfficially, President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam represent the face of the Lebanese state. In practice, Hezbollah remains the most powerful force in the country. Iran continues to fund and arm it, while Western nations, particularly France and the United States, strive to keep Lebanon economically afloat.
Lebanon has become a battleground of competing axes: Iranian versus Western, resistance versus normalization, faith versus survival. Caught in the middle are the Lebanese people, weary of war, desperate for stability and yearning for hope.
Lebanon cannot live in two worlds, with a weak official government and a strong private army. If it wishes to survive as a sovereign state, it must choose to be a nation of citizens rather than a nation of an organization. The country’s future will not be decided by rockets, but by the courage to lay them down.
The world, and especially the Arab world, will open its doors to a Lebanon that chooses life. If the country continues to lean on fear, on weapons and on outdated ideologies, it will remain where it is today, a nation captive to itself.
- Munir Dahir is a political and strategic commentator, retired senior officer and writer specializing in Middle Eastern affairs, regional security and the Druze community.