Lebanon is facing a decisive test as a proposed 10-year, $10 billion international plan to support the Lebanese Army ties future funding to the State’s ability to consolidate all weapons under its authority, placing the issue of disarmament at the center of the country’s economic and security recovery, Erem News reported.

The decade-long support plan, which would provide roughly $1 billion annually, has been framed by international partners as a singular gateway to stabilizing Lebanon after years of conflict, economic collapse, and institutional erosion. But funding is explicitly conditioned on the state’s ability to end the proliferation of non-state arms and restore exclusive control over security through its official institutions.

Supporters of the initiative argue that it represents Lebanon’s last viable opportunity to escape a cycle of wars that have inflicted massive human and material losses, forcing the political leadership into a strategic choice between full sovereignty or continued crisis management.

Experts say the success of the plan hinges on three interlinked pillars: building a strong and neutral national army, neutralizing non-state agendas operating outside state authority, and addressing the continuing Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon, which has long been used to justify the existence of armed groups beyond state control.

As Lebanon’s economy continues to struggle under high sovereign risk and elevated borrowing costs, analysts stress that security has become a prerequisite for economic revival. A credible security framework, they say, would help reduce eurobond yields, attract investment, and ease the country’s long-standing risk premium.

Political analyst Raja Taleb said that restoring stability under current conditions requires first and foremost the removal—or at minimum the exclusion—of all weapons outside the Lebanese Army’s control.

“This is the fundamental principle,” Taleb told Erem News. “As long as there are uncontrolled weapons subject to regional or narrow domestic calculations, Lebanon will remain unstable.”

Taleb said the second critical factor is a unified, well-equipped Lebanese Army that operates strictly under a national program set by the government, free from external or internal interference.

“The army is unified, but it needs to be properly armed and empowered to execute the national agenda without political or factional penetration,” he said.

The third and equally decisive factor, Taleb added, is the Israeli occupation of parts of southern Lebanon, which continues to fuel armed justifications under the banner of resistance.

“If these three foundations are not firmly established, there can be no lasting stability,” he said, warning that Lebanon’s security would otherwise remain fragile and temporary.

While Taleb sees political momentum moving in the right direction, he cautioned that security and military outcomes remain uncertain, dependent on whether the state can strengthen the army, neutralize illegal weapons, and resolve the occupation issue.

“Without that, the equation will remain unbalanced and full of vulnerabilities,” he said, recalling a warning once attributed to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that Lebanon could become a detonator for the Middle East.

From an economic perspective, economist Patrick Mardini said the army’s $10 billion requirement would be spread evenly over a decade, with $1 billion per year supplementing a current defense budget of roughly the same size.

He noted that military salaries remain extremely low and would need to be significantly improved to stabilize personnel, recruit new troops, and modernize equipment.

“The core question is the source of funding,” Mardini said. “Will this be provided through loans or grants?”

If the funds come in the form of international assistance, Mardini said, they will be tied to strict conditions, including full army deployment across Lebanese territory—particularly north of the Litani River—followed by the exclusive consolidation of weapons under state authority.

“There will be no funding without disarmament,” he said.

Mardini argued that the plan could have a transformative economic impact, not only because of the direct injection of $1 billion annually, but because security stability would spare Lebanon the immense costs of repeated wars.

Lebanon’s 2006 war was estimated to have caused $30 billion in losses, while the most recent conflict inflicted damage estimated at $10 billion, he noted.

“If the army succeeds in imposing security, Lebanon will save enormously in financial and human terms,” Mardini said, adding that even during periods without active war, the country has lived under constant security anxiety that has stifled investment and fueled unemployment.

He pointed out that Lebanon’s sovereign risk has historically pushed eurobond yields 500 to 1,000 basis points above U.S. Treasury rates, driving debt servicing costs so high that interest payments consumed nearly half of state revenues in some years.

“With security, sovereign risk declines, interest rates fall, and financing costs stabilize across both the public and private sectors,” Mardini said.

He concluded that while the economic upside of the decade-long army support plan is clear, its success ultimately depends on whether the Lebanese state can overcome resistance from factions unwilling to surrender their weapons.

“Security is the key variable,” he said. “Without it, no amount of funding will be enough.”