Situation Assessment — Progress Center for Polices
Introduction:
The internal Lebanese debate over the state’s exclusive control over arms — and the new government’s plans to take possession of Hezbollah’s weapons — has escalated into an exchange of positions between Tehran and Beirut, culminating in Lebanon’s intention to summon the Iranian ambassador in protest over his statements on the matter. The development is particularly striking amid ongoing negotiations between Iran and the United States.
Details:
On April 22, 2025, Lebanese media sources revealed that Foreign Minister Youssef Raji intends to summon Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani, in the coming two days, following a post the ambassador made on platform “X” (formerly Twitter) about the issue of exclusive control over arms.
In addition to being Lebanon’s foreign minister and representing the official government stance in international relations, Raji is a member of the Lebanese Forces’ share in the government, led by Samir Geagea — the party most vocal in demanding decisive government action to end Hezbollah’s weapons presence.
On April 17, Ambassador Amani stated: “The disarmament project is a clear conspiracy against states,” warning of falling into the enemy’s trap. In his post on X, commenting on reports about disarming Hezbollah, he wrote: “The disarmament project is a clear conspiracy against states. While the United States continues to supply the Zionist entity with the latest weapons and missiles, it prevents other states from arming and strengthening their militaries, and pressures them under various pretexts to reduce or destroy their arsenals.”
He added that: “When these states surrender to disarmament demands, they become vulnerable to attack and occupation, as happened in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.” Amani stressed that Iran “understands the seriousness of this conspiracy and its threat to the security of regional peoples,” adding: “We warn others not to fall into the enemy’s trap. Maintaining deterrence is the first line of defense for sovereignty and independence and must not be compromised.”
The ambassador’s remarks reflect an official Iranian position supporting Hezbollah’s rejection of the promises made by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to enforce state-exclusive control over weapons in Lebanon.
On April 21, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, vowed to “confront anyone who attacks the resistance or attempts to disarm it,” emphasizing that the group will not discuss a defensive strategy under the pressure of Israeli aggression.
Hezbollah’s Coordination and Liaison Unit chief, Wafiq Safa, also stated that “the term ‘disarmament’ is only found on social media by agitators,” affirming that “there is no such thing as disarmament — there’s only the defense strategy President Joseph Aoun mentioned in his inauguration speech.”
Senior Hezbollah figure Mahmoud Qmati had previously threatened to “cut off the hand” that reaches for the group’s weapons — a comment widely interpreted as directed at the president. Qmati later clarified his statement, explaining that “our talk about cutting off the hand was a response to the provocative rhetoric coming from inside the country.”
On April 20, President Aoun reaffirmed his commitment to the issue of exclusive arms control but stated that the timing and method of implementation would depend on the right circumstances. He stressed that “any divisive issue should not be addressed through the media or social platforms but through calm and responsible dialogue with relevant parties.”
Aoun reiterated that “the Lebanese Armed Forces are the sole authority responsible for Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence,” and added: “Let’s address this issue with calm and responsibility, as it is fundamental to preserving civil peace, and I will shoulder this responsibility together with the government.”
The president also announced that the dialogue on the matter would be bilateral between the presidency and Hezbollah, a position differing from Hezbollah’s previous calls for a multi-party national dialogue on the defensive strategy. Observers consider Aoun’s approach to be a direct, executive one, while the party’s preference for broader dialogue is seen as a tactic to buy time.
Observers pointed out that the Iranian ambassador’s stance contrasts with recent developments in Iraq, where on April 7 reports indicated that Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ Al-Sudani and leaders of Iran-aligned militias had made progress in talks aimed at disarming these groups. These discussions reportedly focus on the mechanisms and future direction of the weapons, with government assurances that the arms would remain within Iraq. Analysts believe this flexibility stems from Iranian approval, reportedly conveyed to the militias by Esmail Qaani, commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force.
Analysts noted that the ambassador’s comments come amid signs of progress in the ongoing Iran-U.S. negotiations, even as the issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament remains a prerequisite for international aid and a key American demand — a position clearly voiced by U.S. envoy to Lebanon.
On April 8, U.S. Deputy Envoy to the Middle East Morgan Ortagus stated that “Hezbollah must be fully disarmed,” adding: “Hezbollah is like cancer, and if Lebanon wants to recover, it must be eradicated.”
Conclusion:
The Lebanese Foreign Ministry is expected to summon Iran’s ambassador in Beirut in protest over his remarks, which criticized official Lebanese calls for exclusive state control over weapons — essentially calling for Hezbollah to hand over its arms to the state.
Iran, through its ambassador, characterizes disarmament as an “international conspiracy,” raising questions about the timing of Tehran’s intervention, given that the issue of exclusive arms control has been part of the president’s inauguration speech and the government’s policy statement for months.
Observers wonder about Tehran’s motive for inserting itself into an internal Lebanese debate at a moment when Iran is engaged in seemingly positive negotiations with Washington.
Through the ambassador’s remarks, Iran is seen as aligning itself with Hezbollah’s leadership, which has rejected disarmament and even threatened violence against those pushing for it, while reasserting the party’s insistence on a general dialogue on the national defense strategy.
Notably, Beirut waited five days before leaking information about its intention to summon the Iranian ambassador — indicating the government held internal and external consultations on the matter.
Analysts believe Iran raised this issue to send messages to Hezbollah’s constituency, reaffirming Tehran’s ongoing patronage; to Lebanon’s political establishment, signaling that it retains decision-making authority over weapons it helped supply; and to the international community, reminding it of Iran’s leverage in Lebanon.
A diplomatic dispute between Beirut and Tehran could influence both Arab-Iranian relations and Iran’s ties with Western capitals involved in the Lebanese file.
Finally, the ambassador’s remarks stood in stark contrast to the positive and cordial atmosphere that accompanied Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman’s recent visit to Lebanon — with Riyadh seen as one of the strongest supporters of the new Lebanese administration’s efforts to enforce exclusive state control over arms.
