The value of any Hezbollah leader’s speech is falling faster than that of the Lebanese lira. There is no scale to measure the gap between Hassan Nasrallah’s addresses in 2006 and Naim Qassem’s latest lecture. This is complete bankruptcy. It is not about charisma or delivery but — like anything else in Lebanon — is a mirror of the country’s balance of power. Despite its arsenal of what should now be called illegal armaments, Hezbollah is depleted and deplorable. Qassem’s address had zero impact, with those once forced into silence now speaking the truth — not only from the opposition but also from within government.

This represents a new political dynamic in Lebanon. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam broke with the traditional pattern of forced restraint and silence, directly pushing back against the current Hezbollah leader’s accusations that the government was serving Israeli interests. He hit back by saying that those who had taken unilateral decisions and drawn Lebanon into wars had inflicted the greatest damage. This was a reference to Hezbollah, which has brought destruction on the country and upon itself.

The pushback is an important step, but remains only a symbolic one. It is, therefore, time to establish plans for the country to regain its sovereignty, as this is the only path to avoid being dragged into destruction again and again. While the mechanism of the US-brokered Trilateral Framework Agreement between Israel and Lebanon has been advancing timidly, the government plan to disarm Hezbollah has reached a standstill. Indeed, at the end of July, Lebanon began implementing the first phase by deploying the Lebanese Armed Forces into three pilot zones in southern Lebanon. These initial areas serve as a test for the Lebanese enforcement of sovereignty and a gradual Israeli redeployment. Yet, we have heard nothing about Hezbollah units delivering their weapons to the LAF.

As long as this fails to take place, everyone understands that the strikes will not stop and destruction will continue. No one will gift Lebanon its real independence and sovereignty. This is something the country needs to achieve itself. Interestingly, Qassem said Hezbollah was open to dialogue with Syria’s new leadership, arguing that there was no obstacle to restoring a “fraternal, positive, and cooperative relationship” between Beirut and Damascus. After killing innocent Syrians for a decade in order to save Bashar Assad, this is the result. Yet, the outreach also reveals a deeper concern for Hezbollah. Despite repeated denials, Syria may still be willing to intervene if necessary to curb Hezbollah’s influence.

For now, the Syrian leadership has not embraced Qassem’s overture and is still looking to address the legacy of Hezbollah’s military intervention in the country, while also seeking to resolve the broader security concerns created by the militant group. Yet, even in what appears to be an opening, Qassem once again undermines the country’s sovereignty. Why would a non-state actor have a direct dialogue with the head of state of another nation? How can this still be acceptable? In Lebanon, seeing the head of one of its minorities undertaking an official visit to meet the leaders of another country has become normal. It should not be.

Some will argue that today, even in the West, presidents and heads of state meet with opposition figures from other countries who share the same political alignment. I also oppose those meetings, whether they come from the left or the conservative side. Yet, the scope of these meetings is different, and the institutions safeguarding the state are much stronger and more resilient. All branches of power are well separated and, most of the time, function effectively. In Lebanon, it is the opposite, but it demonstrates that, under the illusion of a state, the country essentially functions as a gathering of tribes. As a consequence, each tribal leader believes it is his duty to meet heads of state and seek support — for his tribe, never the country.

The same applies to most of Lebanon’s problems. One of the most pressing is electricity, where a lucrative generator economy gives well-connected private operators a vested interest in keeping the public grid unreliable. It is no surprise that successive governments have failed to solve this issue or even reform Electricite du Liban, the state-owned power utility. The patronage, sectarian interests, and political interference between the heads of tribes will never allow this system to be dismantled.

Even as we address the banking sector’s Ponzi scheme, with Riad Salameh, the former central bank governor, having been arrested, what has really been done to reform the system and hold the owners of these institutions responsible? What has been done to block and dismantle Hezbollah’s quasi-banking network Al-Qard Al-Hassan? Nothing. Again, this strikes at the heart of state sovereignty, resulting in a system in which political and economic interests often benefit from the status quo, making lasting solutions contrary to the interests of the ruling class and their acolytes.

This all results from Hezbollah’s status, which stands above or beyond the state. The militant group perniciously undermines Lebanese state sovereignty not only through its military arsenal but also by maintaining political, security, and economic networks that operate outside state authority. The fact that it can make decisions on war and peace, influence internal security, threaten institutions, and maintain parallel structures destroys the government’s monopoly over national decision-making and invites others to do the same. The time has arrived not only for symbolic statements against its role but also for direct action to dismantle the entire organization.