While the Zionist regime has escalated its attacks on southern Lebanon, Joseph Aoun, Lebanon's new president, has stated the need for a "decisive monopoly on arms in the hands of the state" and emphasized "diplomacy as the only deterrent option." This stance not only fails to align with the on-ground realities but could also lead to a serious divide between the structures of resistance and the government in Lebanon.

Declared Policy or Practical Capability?

In a meeting with the media in Abu Dhabi, President Aoun spoke of the government's will to rein in weapons but did not clarify which tools the Lebanese state possesses and under what circumstances it is capable of countering Israeli threats while simultaneously asserting sovereignty over the south of the country.

The Lebanese army, grappling with severe equipment, financial, and political challenges, as acknowledged by Aoun himself, is even reliant on foreign assistance for its daily operations. In such conditions, the monopoly on arms appears less like a genuine strategy and more like a political slogan aimed at aligning with the demands of certain regional and international actors.

Resistance: Only Deterrent Shield

In practice, the structure of resistance in Lebanon, particularly Hezbollah, has acted as the only real deterrent against the aggressions of the Zionist regime over the past two decades. Internal agreements, including the Mar Mikhael Agreement, have emphasized the need to complement the army's role with the structure of resistance. Now, however, President Aoun speaks of the "decisiveness" of monopolizing arms without addressing the security, social, and even national unity repercussions of this assertion.

On the other hand, his emphasis on diplomacy as the sole means of countering Israeli aggressions, while seemingly rational and desirable, is interpreted more as passivity than policy when considering the current geopolitical landscape and the ineffectiveness of international resolutions and the UN Security Council.

Forgetting National Consensus; Reproducing Divides

This position is also announced at a time when Lebanon is facing severe economic and political crises, and governing institutions have yet to establish public trust internally.

In this context, the removal of a deterrent tool like the resistance's arms without effective replacement will only make Lebanon more vulnerable to external threats.

Another critical point is that such positions, if not accompanied by internal coordination and national consensus, will exacerbate the risk of reproducing sectarian and political divides in a country that has a history of civil war. Particularly as resistance movements and parts of Lebanon’s Shiite community perceive these statements as an attempt to undermine their strategic role.

Ultimately, the monopoly on arms in the hands of the state will only be meaningful when the state is capable of defending territorial integrity, national dignity, and citizen security on its own. Until that time, any efforts to eliminate or neutralize the resistance will not only fail to bring security but will further push Lebanon toward tension and vulnerability.