Lebanon remains suspended between the shadows of its past and the uncertainties of its future. While the country has long been wracked by political dysfunction, economic collapse, and social fragmentation, the deeper, more intractable issue lies in its sovereignty – or lack thereof. At the heart of this dilemma stands Hezbollah, once hailed as a resistance movement and now a heavily armed state within a state. As new regional dynamics emerge and the long-standing “Axis of Resistance” wanes, Lebanon faces a crucial question: Can it return to functioning as a normal state governed by institutions, free from the grip of a militia that once shaped not only its internal politics but regional confrontations?

The question has become especially pressing in light of the political developments surrounding Joseph Aoun’s rise to the presidency and Nawaf Salam’s appointment as prime minister. Their ascent was endorsed by both Arab and international actors, signaling a desire to restore Lebanon’s legitimacy, sovereignty, and institutional integrity. Both men have pledged to reclaim the authority of the state and reestablish national decision-making as an internal matter – a significant departure from Lebanon’s post-war reality in which foreign patronage and armed proxies dictated policy.

But goodwill alone is not enough. It is clear to foreign powers and many Lebanese alike that no genuine reconstruction or political stability can take root while Hezbollah retains a private arsenal and unilateral control over decisions of war and peace. The south of Lebanon – once the symbolic heartland of resistance against Israeli occupation – cannot remain a Hezbollah-controlled front line if the Lebanese state is to reassert its authority.

To understand Hezbollah’s........

© Blitz