Lebanon has entered a new phase of political and security tensions as it navigates the conditions tied to post-war reconstruction aid and Hezbollah’s willingness to comply, particularly regarding the disarmament of its forces north of the Litani River.

During the funeral of its former Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah, through its new leader Naim Qassem, signaled a readiness to engage in a national defense strategy and adhere to state authority as the ultimate arbiter of war and peace. However, according to a senior official within the Shiite Amal-Hezbollah duo, it is unrealistic to expect Lebanon to build a defense strategy under external pressure, especially amid what he described as “blatant attempts by international and Arab actors to curtail Hezbollah’s influence and frame any political engagement as a sign of defeat.”

Despite mounting tensions, Hezbollah continues to exercise what the official described as “maximum restraint” in dealing with daily provocations linked to reconstruction efforts. More critically, the party remains highly aware of what it sees as attempts to push it toward internal conflict under the pretext of implementing UN Resolution 1701 and the Taif Agreement. According to Hezbollah, the true objective of such calls is not merely compliance with international resolutions but rather the complete disarmament of the group across Lebanon and its dissolution as an armed force.

The official, who spoke to Al-Liwaa newspaper, revealed that Hezbollah has formally communicated its categorical refusal to surrender its weapons. However, it remains open to discussing the future of its arsenal under the framework of a national defense strategy. Until such discussions take place, Hezbollah argues that its weapons remain essential given ongoing Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory.

“For now, we are standing behind the State, observing how it intends to liberate the occupied lands through political and diplomatic means,” the official said. “However, we will not allow Lebanon to remain vulnerable. We reserve the right to act at the appropriate time to defend our country, prevent Israeli incursions, and stop further aggression.”

The official pointed to what Hezbollah sees as a growing Israeli threat, highlighting the continued occupation of Shebaa Farms and the Kfarshouba Hills, with the recent addition of five more positions under Israeli control.

According to the official, certain factions within the Lebanese government have initiated contacts with international actors to link Hezbollah’s disarmament to financial aid for reconstruction and economic recovery. These same discussions reportedly extend to securing Israeli withdrawal from occupied positions in southern Lebanon.

However, Hezbollah warns that such moves could have serious repercussions. The official described them as a “clear attempt to provoke a major political and security crisis that could destabilize the new presidential term—or even derail it altogether.”

“It is crucial that the President and Prime Minister prevent any party from deviating from the commitments outlined in the oath of office and the ministerial statement,” he stressed, cautioning against political maneuvers that could plunge the country into further uncertainty.

Hezbollah’s approach to both allies and rivals in Lebanon has evolved, the official noted. The party has recalibrated its political and strategic priorities based on a new vision, suggesting that its previously pragmatic relationships—particularly with the Free Patriotic Movement—may no longer hold the same weight.

From within the Shiite duo itself, some voices have acknowledged a miscalculation in Hezbollah’s past alliances. One senior figure suggested the party erred in prioritizing Michel Aoun and Gebran Bassil over Marada Movement leader Sleiman Frangieh. However, he maintained that the upcoming parliamentary elections will reveal the true political weight of each party in Lebanon.

For now, all sides are bracing for what comes next, as Lebanon finds itself once again at the center of a high-stakes regional power struggle.