The Lebanese government has shown “no perseverance” and “no determination” to disarm Hezbollah, Samir Geagea, leader of parliament's largest party, has said.
The head of Lebanese Forces, which has four ministers in the cabinet, blasted a lack of political will over the arms issue and warned that the country is at risk of being left behind in a rapidly changing region because of the impasse.
“There is no determination. There is no clarity, there is no perseverance. From time to time, there are some declarations, and everybody knows that these declarations are like empty declarations,” Mr Geagea said in an interview from his heavily protected party headquarters and home in the mountain town of Maarab.
In August, breaking a decades-long taboo, the Lebanese government formally instructed the army to bring all weapons under state control, effectively ordering the disarmament of the once-formidable Hezbollah, a task long deemed unthinkable.
But key mediators, including the US, say progress has been too slow, while Israel has sharply escalated its attacks on Lebanon in response. Analysts argue that Washington is overlooking a crucial factor: Hezbollah’s power is deeply tied to Iran, which finances, arms, and directs much of its military strategy.
Mr Geagea, 73, is one of the most prominent critics of Hezbollah and commanded the largest Christian militia in the second half of the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war, but now leads the parliament's largest party.
He said most of the government was not being “serious” over Hezbollah's weapons and lacked the political will, although he absolved the four LF ministers – including the Foreign Minister Youssef Ragi – and a handful of other similarly-minded cabinet members.
“They don't want to take big decisions, clear decisions, even though the government took a big decision on August 5 and 7. Ok, but it fell short of applying any of these decisions or fulfilling any of these decisions.”
He contrasted the optimism in January, when President Joseph Aoun was elected and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam began forming a government, both backed by the Lebanese Forces, with the current mood.
At the time, Mr Geagea said there was clear “political will, political declaration, [and] political determination,” referring to the two leaders’ early pledges that all weapons would be brought under state control.
He stated that the government should have stood firm on that commitment, despite the risk of igniting civil unrest, instead of retreating after Hezbollah officials immediately rejected the move.
“At this point, the government should have been very clear and very adamant. The government should have called them and told them, you cannot … You are against the law.”
He said Lebanon was “stuck” and would remain “stuck until we sink” unless Hezbollah handed over its weapons and the country improved co-ordination with the US and Arab states, particularly in the Gulf.
However, it is understood that any decision by Hezbollah to disarm will not happen without Iran’s approval – and will likely come with a price, to be paid to both the group and Tehran.
Risks of being left behind
Mr Geagea warned Lebanon was at risk of being left behind in a rapidly changing region – something foreign envoys have often warned – because of the impasse.
He contrasted the fortunes of Lebanon with Syria, which toppled 50 years of the Assad regime last December and whose President, Ahmad Al Shara, met with US President Donald Trump this week at the White House.
“Lebanon right now, frankly, and in a very transparent way, is starting to lag behind. Because the overall strategic direction in the area is in one direction, and the authorities in Lebanon are losing time in bickering here and there and in small schemes that lead to nowhere.
“And the proof of it is that the President of Syria is in the United States, in the White House, the President of Lebanon is in Bulgaria, with all due respect, of course, to Bulgaria, I'm talking about international influence.”
Hours after the interview with Mr Geagea, Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem repeated that the group would not hand over its weapons in the current circumstances.
Mr Geagea said Lebanon did not have to face a binary choice between another Israeli war or a new civil war. But avoiding both, he warned, required far greater resolve from a government already under intense external pressure and grappling with a deep economic crisis.
Armistice with Israel
President Aoun has called for indirect negotiations with Israel to solve a host of issues, from border demarcation to the release of Lebanese prisoners held in Israel. But Mr Geagea questioned what those negotiations would entail.
“The President is talking about negotiations, but I don't know, really, which negotiations in what form and the substance of these negotiations? So once I know all of these unknowns, I can judge. But now to talk about negotiations in the absolute term, I cannot judge.”
Israel has repeatedly occupied and invaded Lebanon in its short history. Before the creation of Iran-backed Hezbollah in the 1980s amid Israel's occupation of Lebanon, Palestinian fighters had fought Israel from Lebanon.
The future to end the constant state of conflict and war was an armistice, Mr Geagea said, along the lines of Israel's first 20 years of existence in the 1950s and 1960s.
“Return with me a bit to between 1949, when the armistice was done. 1949 and 1969 in these 20 years, how were the borders between Lebanon and Israel?” he asked, arguing the problems began first when Palestinian factions used Lebanon as a launch pad for attacks on Israel, and the tension continued following the emergence of Hezbollah.
“So what is the solution? The solution is to return to the status quo. What does it mean? The armistice truce.”
Lebanon and Syria are seeking a fresh start in diplomatic relations following the fall of the Assad regime last December. Syria, under the latter, which was a key ally of Hezbollah, occupied Lebanon from 1976 to 2005 and dominated the country's security apparatus.
Mr Geagea opposed Syria’s presence in Lebanon. Lebanon passed a general amnesty following the end of the civil war, but he spent 11 years in solitary confinement from 1994-2005. He was serving three life sentences for crimes committed during the war, before being released amid the Cedar Revolution in 2005 that led to Syria’s withdrawal.
Mr Geagea’s supporters say his conviction was because of his opposition to Syria’s presence in Lebanon, while Amnesty International said the trial was “seriously flawed”.
On relations with Syria moving forward, he saw them hopefully “heading towards a better and better understanding”.
With Saudi Arabia, which has good relations with the LF and previously invested heavily in Lebanon but stepped back amid the growing power of Iran-backed Hezbollah over Lebanese politics, Mr Geagea said Riyadh “had lost faith” with Beirut until the elections of Mr Aoun and Mr Salam earlier this year.
“With the new government, they started to build up faith again in the Lebanese population. I hope we will not push them to lose faith again in the Lebanese population, the Lebanese people.”
The Lebanese Forces, like most groups in Lebanon, repeatedly stated that the group had completely disarmed following the civil war. But Lebanon has struggled since the end of the war with the widespread presence of firearms and weaponry. The ruling establishment and most of the political parties, which have governed since the conflict, are believed to have remained heavily armed.
Hezbollah was the only significant armed group to publicly acknowledge its weapons, doing so in the name of "resistance" against Israel, which still occupied southern Lebanon at the time.
Mr Geagea has had an eventful life, from a medical student who paused his studies in 1975 to fight in the civil war to commander, prisoner and then politician. He was asked if there was anything he had learnt from the past that could move Lebanon forward today.
“Any military gains you make are subject at any time to be lost. Any political gain you make, nobody can take it from you. The real gain is the political gain.
“So it is better if Hezbollah switches to political endeavour, to political work, real political work, and then it will have real gains, whereas whatever it thinks about its military wing will lead to nowhere, except to more and more destruction.”
