Pressure continues to mount both inside Lebanon and internationally for the State to assert exclusive control over weapons currently held by Hezbollah, even as the country remains embroiled in conflict. What was once viewed primarily as a domestic issue is increasingly seen as part of a broader regional struggle linked to Iran, amid U.S. and Israeli efforts to curb Tehran’s influence by dismantling its regional proxy networks.

Lebanese and U.S. officials say Hezbollah’s arsenal intersects with both Lebanese sovereignty concerns and broader geopolitical considerations, Erem News reported. They argue that restoring full State authority requires ending the militia’s unchecked military capabilities and neutralizing the threats posed by its armed wing in Lebanon. Achieving progress on disarmament, they emphasize, is not merely a response to external pressure but a necessary step to prevent conflicts on Lebanese soil under the pretext of Hezbollah’s weapons.

Former commander of the Lebanese Army’s strike force, Tony Abu Samra, told Erem News that Hezbollah’s disarmament must be understood within a regional framework that extends beyond Lebanon’s internal politics. Abu Samra said the issue lies at the heart of Iran’s confrontation with the United States and Israel.

“This interconnection is clearly reflected in the approaches of both sides in the ongoing confrontation,” he said. “Non-state actors like Hezbollah are viewed as integral components of the conflict’s nature.”

He explained that from Iran’s perspective, Hezbollah is part of the "velayat-e faqih" project, the ideological foundation of the Iranian system. Its leaders have repeatedly declared allegiance to Iran’s Supreme Leader, reflecting a deep doctrinal and political bond that makes the group more than a regional ally; it is rather a core component of Tehran’s strategic architecture in the Middle East.

Hezbollah relies heavily on Iranian support for training, weapons, funding, and logistics, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps playing a central role in building its capabilities. According to multiple assessments, Revolutionary Guard officers have taken on increasingly visible leadership and command roles since the outbreak of war on October 7, 2023, strengthening tactical integration between the two.

At the operational level, Abu Samra said Hezbollah functions as part of an interconnected regional network coordinated by Iran across Gaza, Yemen, and Lebanon, connecting these theaters to Tehran’s broader strategic goals.

In contrast, Israel and the United States have long defined the Iranian threat in three dimensions: its nuclear program, ballistic missile capabilities, and a network of regional proxies led by Hezbollah.

 “These three dimensions form an integrated system,” Abu Samra said. “Hezbollah is a key element of Iran’s ability to deter, attack, and exert direct influence on Israel. From Tehran’s point of view, Hezbollah’s weapons serve as an advanced defensive line and a strategic tool linking multiple fronts.”

From the U.S. and Israeli perspective, he added, Hezbollah’s arsenal is integral to Iran’s overall threat.

 “The effort to disarm Hezbollah cannot be understood solely as a Lebanese internal issue but as a fundamental element of a wider regional struggle,” Abu Samra said.

Echoing this perspective, Edward Gabriel, president and CEO of the American Task Force for Lebanon, said the push to disarm Hezbollah also stems from Lebanon’s own need to restore state authority and control over security decisions.

“Given that Hezbollah is Iran’s most prominent regional proxy, any effort to reduce its influence inevitably aligns with the broader U.S.-Israeli effort to confront Tehran,” Gabriel told Erem News. “The agendas intersect in this context.”

Gabriel said disarmament operates on two levels: domestically, as a vital step for Lebanon’s recovery and the restoration of sovereignty; and regionally, in alignment with efforts to weaken Iran through its Lebanese proxy.

He emphasized that progress on Hezbollah’s disarmament should not be framed as a concession to external pressure but as a necessary step toward restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty and preventing renewed conflict on its soil.