Kataeb MP Salim Sayegh rejected what he described as the “duality of arms” in Lebanon, emphasizing that only the State should have the authority to possess and use weapons.

“There should be no weapons outside the authority of the Lebanese State,” Sayegh told Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, citing the ministerial statement of the new government, which Parliament is set to discuss today. The statement explicitly affirms the exclusive right of the army and legitimate security agencies to control weapons, he noted.

Sayegh also warned against using ambiguous language to evade the provisions under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, the President’s inaugural speech, and the government’s ministerial statement.

“We must focus on transitioning all armed militias in Lebanon toward civilian activities and establishing a social safety net that would transform combatants into a productive workforce,” he said.

His remarks come amid renewed debate over Lebanon’s defensive strategy following the latest war between Hezbollah and Israel, which inflicted heavy losses on both the group and the country as a whole.

Before the war, the concept of a defensive strategy was championed primarily by political forces seeking to regulate Hezbollah’s arsenal and bring it under state control. However, following the conflict, Hezbollah itself has begun calling for a national defense strategy, a shift reflected in the latest speech by the group’s Secretary-General, Naim Qassem. 

While Hezbollah's opponents once supported a defensive strategy as a means of integrating the group's weapons into the State, they now argue that circumstances have changed. Their position aligns with the inaugural speech delivered by President Joseph Aoun who underscored that only the State has the right to protect Lebanese sovereignty and defend the country against Israeli aggression.

Some observers have suggested that Lebanon should leverage Hezbollah’s military capabilities, including its trained fighters and weapons stockpiles, in the event of an external threat. However, Sayegh dismissed this argument, insisting that only the State should define the framework for defending Lebanese sovereignty.

“If, God forbid, the army were to be defeated in any confrontation with the enemy, the State could then resort to mobilizing reserves,” he said. “However, this remains the responsibility of the army and security forces within the framework of the general policy that stipulates the exclusive possession of arms by the state. No entity should have the right to use weapons independently of state authority.”

He further emphasized that national security must encompass border security, internal security, and even social security—on the condition that there is no duality of arms.