Serge Dagher, political adviser to the head of the Kataeb Party, said Lebanon should be a sovereign State whose decisions, weapons and security are controlled by its own institutions, arguing that Hezbollah’s continued possession of an independent military arsenal lies at the heart of the country’s political and security crisis.

In an interview on Hakika News YouTube platform, Dagher said the Lebanon envisioned by the Kataeb was the country that all Lebanese should aspire to: a State belonging to everyone, fully independent and sovereign, and not subordinate to a cause or regional project larger than itself.

He also drew a distinction between the political thought of Imam Musa al-Sadr and what he described as the positions of some people who now claim to represent his legacy.

“Sadr saw the Shiite community as an essential part of Lebanon,” Dagher said. “He saw it as a community that belonged to Lebanon and defended oppressed Lebanese. His entire political message was about Lebanese identity and national partnership. Every component of Lebanese society, in his view, should belong to Lebanon.”

“For us, Lebanon comes first, second and last,” he added. “Every citizen should love Lebanon, fight for it and defend it. We want to build this country together. We want equal rights and equal responsibilities for all Lebanese. We want to live together freely and with dignity. We want to recover the south, we want an Israeli withdrawal, we want our prisoners back and we want to live with real dignity and pride. No one can truly live with dignity while being in a position of weakness or living in a tent.”

Dagher refuted accusations that the Kataeb was acting on behalf of Israel, promoting Zionism or seeking to exclude a particular Lebanese community, attributing these claims to the party's demand for a single legitimate military authority.

“The principle is very simple: there should be no weapons in this country outside the weapons of the State army,” he said.

“If I tell you that I want to live with you as an equal, that I want the State to protect both of us, and that the army protecting me is the same army protecting you, how does that make me a Zionist or a collaborator?”

He said the composition of the Lebanese army itself demonstrated that the demand for exclusive State control of weapons was not directed against any particular sect.

“When we talk about the Lebanese army, we have to remember that Shiites and Sunnis are both fundamental components of it,” Dagher said. “Shiites, in particular, make up a large part of the Lebanese army. So if I say that I want our national army to protect all of us, does that suddenly make me a Zionist or a collaborator?”

On Hezbollah’s weapons, Dagher argued that Israel’s repeated incursions into Lebanon should be viewed in the context of how the south was used as a military arena.

Israel invaded Lebanon several times, including in 1982, when its forces reached Beirut, he said, at a time when Hezbollah did not yet exist.

“There were Palestinian factions, resistance groups and national forces,” Dagher said. “But the main armed force was Palestinian, and Lebanese national forces joined the resistance.”

“Why did Israel enter? Because we allowed the south to become an open battlefield. The Palestinians settled there and began firing at Israel, and Israel then entered and invaded Lebanon. The Palestinians eventually left.”

Dagher said the situation was different before Hezbollah opened what he called its first “war of support” for Gaza.

“Before that first decision to support Gaza, Israel was not present in the south in the way it is today,” he said. “There was an Israeli presence in the Shebaa Farms and Kfarshuba. Then, after the first war of support, Israel came to occupy five positions inside Lebanon. After the decision to enter a second war of support, Israel occupied larger areas.”

Dagher said the Kataeb supports Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President Joseph Aoun, stressing that his assessment of a president should be based on political positions rather than military or civilian background.

“It doesn't matter to me whether the president came from the military or from somewhere else,” he said. “What matters is his political position.”

He also defended the continuation of negotiations with Israel.

“If negotiations stop, how are we going to achieve our demands?” Dagher asked. “Did Iran manage to secure a ceasefire? Did it manage to stop the war in the south?”

Some Lebanese argue that Beirut entered negotiations without sufficient leverage, he said.

“But what is Lebanon’s leverage?” Dagher asked. “If we are talking about leverage, then the resistance and the weapons of the resistance are the card that can be used at the negotiating table. But the real question is whether Hezbollah is prepared to hand that card to President Joseph Aoun.”

Dagher rejected the argument that Hezbollah’s arsenal should be treated as purely an internal Lebanese matter.

“The weapons themselves are not simply a domestic issue,” he said. “Their source is not domestic, their decision is not domestic, their financing is not domestic and their political authority is not domestic.”

Dagher said Hezbollah’s relationship with Iran went beyond religion.

“I challenge any Hezbollah official to say that the Wali al-Faqih is merely a religious authority,” he said. “For Hezbollah, he is also a political authority — its political and ideological leader.”

“If your political authority is outside Lebanon, then this cannot be considered purely an internal Lebanese affair. It has a regional dimension.”

Hezbollah, he added, has itself described its identity as part of a wider regional cause.

“When Iran goes to war, Hezbollah enters the war. When Bashar al-Assad needed support, Hezbollah went to Syria. When Hamas needed support, there was support. There have been training and ties with the Houthis, as well as relations with Hezbollah in Iraq,” Dagher said.

Dagher said the Kataeb was not alone in demanding that weapons be placed under State authority, pointing to the Lebanese Forces, Druze and Sunni political forces and others who oppose armed groups operating independently of the state.

He also cited Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, whom he described as representing a large part of Lebanon’s Shiite community, as having backed the principle of exclusive state control of weapons.

“President Joseph Aoun spoke about the state’s exclusive control over weapons in his inaugural address,” Dagher said. “The government has also spoken about it.”

“If all Lebanese are talking about exclusive state control of weapons, and Hezbollah agreed to the election of Joseph Aoun, then it should, in principle, agree with that principle.”

Dagher also questioned the extent of Iranian influence over Lebanese political decision-making, citing statements by Iranian officials about Tehran’s influence in four Arab capitals, including Beirut.

“Some people may say that this is about a regional axis confronting Israel,” he said. “But the question remains: Why is there this influence in Lebanon? Why is Hezbollah able to wield so much influence over Lebanese decision-making?”

At one point, Dagher said, Hezbollah had acquired the ability to influence government formation, ministerial statements and major state decisions.

“This became particularly clear during the events of May 7,” he said, referring to the 2008 clashes that erupted after government measures affecting Hezbollah’s communications network and security infrastructure.

“Hezbollah took to the streets because it believed decisions had been taken against its weapons and its existence. That was the moment when we saw the difference between a political party that has an opinion and a party that possesses the power to impose that opinion.”

Dagher also pointed to cases involving assassinations and the Lebanese judiciary, saying that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon had convicted people linked to Hezbollah over the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

“The tribunal identified them by name,” he said. “As for the Lebanese investigations, they ultimately moved forward because people insisted that they continue, and because victims and their families wanted to know the truth.”

Dagher said the Kataeb wanted Lebanon to be free of wars, with a properly equipped army and a political decision-making process controlled by Lebanese institutions.

“We want Lebanon to be an independent state. We don't want wars. We want to arm the Lebanese army, and we want Lebanese decisions to be made by Lebanese,” he said.

He rejected the idea that accepting outside assistance necessarily compromised Lebanese sovereignty.

“If an American or a Saudi comes and says, ‘We support Lebanon’s independence, we support arming the Lebanese army, we support Lebanon having a free and independent decision, we support exclusive state control of weapons and we support a healthy Lebanese economy,’ what is wrong with that?”

“If Saudi Arabia puts a deposit in the Central Bank of Lebanon to help the country through a crisis, and if the United States provides weapons to the Lebanese army, why should I reject that simply because there is an American or Saudi role?”

Dagher argued that military power alone could not guarantee Lebanon’s security and that diplomacy and political agreements were essential to ending conflicts.

“Politics is what can stop a war, not military force alone,” he said.

“Countries do not always build stability on their ability to wage war. Some countries are militarily stronger than others but still choose peace agreements or political understandings because they want to end wars.”

Lebanon’s recent experience, he said, demonstrated the limits of relying solely on military deterrence.

“There was a major security breach, and Israel managed to reach figures and commanders whom nobody expected it could reach,” Dagher said. “Even Hezbollah leaders acknowledged that they had not anticipated the scale of the breach.”

“That tells us that deterrence does not always come from military power alone. Protecting Lebanon and preserving its stability requires a strong state, an army, an independent political decision and diplomacy capable of protecting Lebanon’s interests.”

Dagher also drew a distinction between the resistance movement that existed during earlier periods of Israeli occupation and Hezbollah’s current armed structure.

“What we did in the past was honorable resistance,” he said. “Its objectives were Lebanese, its funding was Lebanese, its decisions were Lebanese and its fighters were Lebanese.”

“When the State was established, that resistance handed over its weapons, placed itself at the disposal of the state and eventually became a political party. And today, we all support the army.”

For the Kataeb, Dagher said, the central issue was therefore not opposition to resistance as an idea but the question of who has the authority to decide matters of war and peace, and who has the legitimate right to bear arms in Lebanon.

On relations with Syria, Dagher said the rhetoric of the country’s new authorities represented a departure from the policies and discourse of former President Bashar al-Assad.

“The new leadership in Syria speaks in a way that is fundamentally different from Bashar al-Assad,” he said. “That is why we welcomed it.”

Dagher also challenged Hezbollah’s repeated criticism of the Lebanese government.

“If Hezbollah is accusing the government of treason and collaboration, why does it insist on remaining part of that government?” he asked.

“After all the changes, and after 40 years in power, Hezbollah is now in a state of confusion. It doesn't know what it wants.”

Explaining the Kataeb’s opposition to the general amnesty law, Dagher criticized the military court during the tenure of former military prosecutor Munir Shehadeh.

He said the court had been placed under Hezbollah’s influence and that its judgments had been issued selectively, adding that subsequent events showed Shehadeh was not acting as an independent judge.

“The discussion initially was about granting amnesty to people who had been wronged,” Dagher said. “But in its amended form today, it has become a ridiculous law.”

Dagher said the newly adopted media law was broadly positive but still required amendments.

“The new media law is 99% good,” he said. “But the provision dealing with prosecuting journalists over fake news needs to be discussed and can be amended.”

On capital punishment, he said the state should punish criminals rather than execute them.

“The State should punish the criminal, not kill him,” he said.