Hezbollah on Wednesday lambasted a push by the Lebanese government to disarm the Iran-backed group and vowed to ignore the US-backed effort, saying it leaves the country defenseless against Israel.
“The government of Nawaf Salam has committed a grave sin by making a decision that strips Lebanon of the weapons of the Resistance against the Israeli enemy,” Hezbollah said in a statement.
Lebanon's cabinet on Tuesday tasked the national army with establishing a state monopoly on weapons and confiscating the arms of any other groups. Though Hezbollah was not explicitly mentioned, it was the clear focus of the move.
A punishing war with Israel late last year left long-time Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah dead, scores of leaders maimed by booby traps and much of the group's missile cache destroyed.
The conflict destroyed large parts of Beirut’s southern suburbs and southern Lebanon, killing and displacing thousands of people. Israel suffered only minimal casualties and damage.
'Ready to talk'
Once Iran's most fearsome ally in the region, Hezbollah lost a key lifeline to Tehran with the ouster of the Assad dynasty by Sunni Islamist rebels in neighboring Syria and now faces an uncertain future under its ageing clerical leader Naim Qassem.
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam mandated that the plan to collect weapons from non-state actors be completed by year's end. Hezbollah vowed to spurn the initiative.
“We will treat this decision as though it does not exist,” Hezbollah added. “We are ready to discuss a national security strategy, but not under the sound of aggression.”
Israel routinely launches drone and air strikes inside Lebanon against targets it deems a security threat while it maintains a limited presence on the country's soil.
Hezbollah has vowed never to disarm until Israel fully withdraws from what it deems Lebanese territory.
'Surrender'
The group further criticized the United States special envoy Tom Barrack, saying the Lebanese government move heeded his “diktats".
“What the government has decided is part of a surrender strategy and a clear abandonment of the fundamentals of Lebanon’s sovereignty,” Hezbollah said.
Founded in 1982 by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hezbollah is blamed for deadly bomb attacks on US and French military personnel based in Lebanon during the country's civil war.
Its guerrilla campaign ultimately ejected an Israeli occupation in the country's South but ultimately its arms crumpled in the face of its arch-foe's attacks last year.
Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist group by the United States, United Kingdom and Germany, while receiving extensive military and financial support from Iran.
Hardline voices in Tehran have slammed the Lebanese initiative.
“The wish to disarm Hezbollah will go to your grave,” security journalist Hossein Saremi posted on X.
In a video published by the IRGC’s political affairs office, Brigadier General Yadollah Javani, the deputy for political affairs at Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), addressed recent public criticism about the limited support shown by Beijing and Moscow during the conflict, which saw multiple Israeli and US strikes against Iranian military and nuclear sites.
“Some people in society asked during the war why China and Russia, with whom we have 25-year and 20-year cooperation agreements, did not assist us,” Javani said. “The answer is that the nature of these agreements does not include mutual defense or obligations for either country to enter a war on the other’s behalf.”
Javani emphasized that Iran did not seek outside military support during the conflict. “The Islamic Republic did not request help from any country—not even from members of the Axis of Resistance,” he said, referring to Tehran-backed militia forces across the region.
Responding to suggestions that the long-term agreements with Beijing and Moscow implied mutual military backing, Javani said: “These are cooperation agreements that involve military collaboration, arms sales, and other areas. But unlike formal security pacts, they do not obligate the parties to come to each other’s defense in times of war.”
He offered an analogy: “For example, we have a military cooperation agreement with Moscow, but when Russia entered into a war with Ukraine, we were not obligated to support them, and likewise, they are not obligated to join us in any conflict.”
The comments come amid debate within Iranian media and political circles over what some perceive as tepid responses from Iran’s strategic partners.
During the conflict, Russia condemned USairstrikes on Iranian targets as “unjustifiable” and “aggressive,” while China called for restraint and dialogue. Both stopped short of offering any material or military assistance.
Iranian state media and officials have described the conflict, which lasted nearly two weeks, as a significant test of Iran’s defensive capabilities as well as its diplomatic alliances.
The Jomhouri-e Eslami daily recently criticized the Kremlin over the long-promised but undelivered S-400 air defense systems.
The same editorial questioned whether China would take concrete steps to address Iran’s defense vulnerabilities—or whether the 20-year strategic cooperation agreement would remain, in their words, “just a piece of paper.”
Despite this, Javani defended Russia’s role during the war. “President Vladimir Putin made notable diplomatic and political efforts in support of the Islamic Republic in international forums,” he said. “These are the types of actions we expect on the political level, and he delivered.”