Geagea: It's Over... Hezbollah Must Disband Its Military Wing or the State Must Intervene

Head of the Lebanese Forces Party Samir Geagea affirmed, in an interview on "Al-Arabiya – Al-Hadath," that President of the Republic Joseph Aoun is fully committed to his choice regarding the framework agreement and the negotiation path, pointing out that the problem is not with the voices opposing the agreement, but with "departing from certain political norms," and thus whoever criticizes the agreement must propose an alternative to it.

He noted that Lebanon has so far covered "60 or 70 percent of the road toward establishing a real state in Lebanon, and the proof is the negotiations being conducted by the Lebanese authority, whether right or wrong, which indicates the existence of an independent Lebanese authority that is conducting the negotiations itself, and does not leave Iran to negotiate on behalf of Lebanon, and therefore 'the train is on the tracks. The issue now is for it to cover the entire required distance.'"

He said, "Practically, anyone has the right to criticize, but whoever criticizes a particular position must come up with another position, and whoever criticizes a particular step must propose an alternative." From here, in our view, and based on the current reality in Lebanon, and the existing situation in the region, there is no alternative to the framework agreement. For fifty years until today, have we ever seen any Lebanese politician say that we must negotiate with Israel? Never, not even for a single day. But the situation we found ourselves in, especially in the last two or three years, placed us in a predicament from which there is no exit except by attempting agreement and negotiation. And the way Hezbollah behaved, without awareness, without calculations, and without logic, is what brought the country to this predicament."

He continued: "Let us assume we set aside the framework agreement, how should the Lebanese authority and the Lebanese state act to get out of this predicament? Some propose two exits other than the framework agreement. The first exit is to continue fighting and persist in it, but what became clear from the first weeks of fighting is that the balance of power is very significantly different. Therefore, continuing the fighting means continuing until the destruction of the last village in the last region in Lebanon, and then where do we end up? Nowhere. Meanwhile, others propose that, instead of the framework agreement and the Washington track, let us go to the Islamabad track. And here I want to clarify a very important point: the Islamabad track is a track between America on one side and Iran on the other, and thus each of these two parties seeks to preserve its interests. This is not a track between Lebanon and another party, but between America and Iran. And when Iran speaks on the Islamabad track, it speaks based on its interests in Lebanon, not the interests of the Lebanese in Lebanon."

After pointing out that what comes after the agreement on the ground resembles what came before it, the head of the Forces clarified that the Islamabad track "gave Lebanon a theoretical ceasefire on paper, and in vague terms, as it was mentioned in the agreement generally covering all fronts, including Lebanon. But more importantly, when Iran demands a ceasefire in Lebanon, it demands it in an attempt to preserve its gains in Lebanon, and in an attempt to preserve Hezbollah in Lebanon."

He added in this context, "Let us hypothetically accept that Iran's demand for a ceasefire in Lebanon achieved its required purpose. Do you know what that means? It means returning to the starting point, i.e., returning to March 1, 2026, before Hezbollah started its war on March 2. What would we have done? Nothing."

While stressing that "the strength of the current framework agreement lies in addressing a reality that has persisted for fifty years," he affirmed that throughout this period until today, Lebanon has an open flank, which is southern Lebanon on the Lebanese-Israeli border. And because it is an open flank, we have witnessed all kinds of resistance movements. Regardless of intentions, I do not want to pass judgment on intentions, but we all know that these resistance movements have not been able to contribute even a single hair's breadth to the advancement of the Palestinian cause. The biggest proof is that, for fifty years until today, what have all these resistance movements led to? They led to the destruction of Lebanon on one hand, and to not providing anything additional to the Palestinian cause on the other hand.

Regarding the support war, Geagea reiterated that "this war did not benefit Gaza in any way, and provided a framework for Israel to be able to do what it did. The question that arises is: let us assume Hezbollah did not wage the support war for Gaza, what would have happened in Lebanon? Nothing, because it is impossible, 'without there being something,' for Israel to be able to carry out military, offensive, or retaliatory operations, call them what you will."

He added, "The entire goal of the Gaza war, whether it was supporting Gaza or supporting an Iranian strategy in the region, was not achieved. Did it lead to supporting the Iranian strategy or supporting Gaza? Never. Gaza was destroyed, and in addition, Lebanon was also destroyed. Therefore, Lebanon has had an open flank to incidents and events for fifty years."

On the issue of Hezbollah's weapons, Geagea chose to affirm that "disarming Hezbollah is a Lebanese necessity first and foremost, and without any favor from Israel, America, or anyone else, disarming Hezbollah is a Lebanese necessity first and foremost. It should have been done in the first month of 1990, when all militias in Lebanon were disarmed. Moreover, the military existence of Hezbollah in Lebanon is what has hindered, until yesterday, the establishment of a real Lebanese state."

He said, "In the absence of a real Lebanese state, we do not need Israel for Lebanon to be delayed and destroyed. Over the past fifty years, when the Lebanese state was paralyzed, we saw all kinds of calamities, oddities, and wonders on Lebanese soil. Therefore, what I want to say to the Arab citizen in general is that our fundamental problem is in Hezbollah's weapons."

In response to a question, he answered, "I have a very deep conviction that, in the presence of a real Lebanese state, neither Israel nor anyone else is capable of encroaching upon Lebanon, for a simple reason: it is one of the most impossible things, in the equations of the world, for anyone to accept encroaching upon Lebanon without any direct reason, while all Arab, European, and foreign countries know it and love it. Meanwhile, the mere existence of Hezbollah in the form it exists, as a faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, has given a pretext to anyone who wants to interfere in Lebanon."

Responding to accusations of inciting against Hezbollah and the Shia sect, Geagea commented, saying: "The Shia sect, as a sect, has nothing to do with this matter. We are talking about a party within the Shia sect, specifically Hezbollah." And this same party has said repeatedly through its former secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah: I am a soldier in the Wilayat al-Faqih. I am not the one saying they are a faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard; rather, they are indeed a faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. There are Iranian advisors from the Revolutionary Guard present in Hezbollah units in Lebanon. And all of Hezbollah's funding, and we are talking about funding exceeding one billion dollars per year, comes from Iran, and all of Hezbollah's orders come from Iran. Therefore, for this reason, it is objectively a faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard."

He continued: "Whoever is a resistance, is a resistance for the interest of a specific people and for the interest of a specific land. And I want to pose the question: in the last round of fighting on March 2 last year, when Hezbollah launched six rockets from southern Lebanon and the latest clashes erupted, which are still ongoing until this moment, what was the Lebanese reason for these rockets? There is no Lebanese reason."

Geagea revealed that "President Joseph Aoun had previously contacted Speaker Nabih Berri and asked him to tell Hezbollah's group not to move and not to enter the war that occurred between America and Iran, and said that, in return, he would speak with the Americans to pressure the Israelis not to move in Lebanon. The response came to President Aoun from Speaker Berri that Hezbollah had given a promise that it would not move in Lebanon. In return, President Aoun contacted the Americans, who took 24 hours and then returned to him with a response stating that as long as Hezbollah would not move from Lebanon, Israel would not move in southern Lebanon. Then, less than 24 hours later, unfortunately, Hezbollah moved. Can you tell me by whose order Hezbollah moved? The answer is clear and simple: by order of Iran."

Geagea, who stressed that "it is not enough for Hezbollah to say it is a Lebanese party; it must act on the basis that it is a Lebanese party," considered that "many of Hezbollah's actions indicate that it is not a Lebanese party, and I gave the latest example in the current war, when it moved directly to support Iran in a clear manner."

Regarding Iran's lack of movement when Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated and its later movement, Geagea explained: "When Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated, there was an ongoing war between Hezbollah and Israel, and thus Hezbollah was moving. But I have another question: why did Iran finally move and bomb Tel Aviv, and did not move when Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated? The answer is that, when Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated, Hezbollah still possessed a certain strength and was fighting with it. And the Iranians are Iranians, meaning they will continue fighting until the last Lebanese. But when it finally reached a stage where Hezbollah was in a very difficult position, and Iran was about to lose its main card in the region, it was forced to intervene and fire some rockets at Tel Aviv, which confirms more and more that Hezbollah is a faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard."

Regarding the Lebanese state's position on Hezbollah's weapons, Geagea said: "President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam are in complete agreement on the necessity of ending all weapons outside the state. And the Lebanese government has taken enough decisions to dissolve Hezbollah's military and security wings. But I do not hide that President Joseph Aoun, until this moment, is trying to avoid using force internally, although I personally am not of this opinion, considering that the use of force by the state is not violence; the state, at certain times, and to preserve security and supreme national interests, is forced to use force."

He continued, "And this is what delays the Lebanese state's movement with force to dissolve Hezbollah's military and security wings. President Aoun is betting that matters have reached a point where Hezbollah should have learned a lesson, or has gained a new awareness of its reality, its actual situation, and its position, and thus can accept dissolving itself. As for me, I do not believe this theory; political and diplomatic attempts have been exhausted." He added, explaining, "For twenty-one years we have been holding dialogue tables in Lebanon. I personally participated in no less than ten of them, and I no longer participate because I have become certain that Hezbollah is laughing at all of us. It is not about to give up its weapons, nor return strategic decision-making to the state, nor anything of the sort."

He added: "Unfortunately, I have become certain that Hezbollah is in another world. It is in the world of the Islamic Republic of Iran, not in our world here in Lebanon. Therefore, it is futile to try to use logic or diplomacy to ward off Hezbollah's evil from Lebanon. From this standpoint, I say that if any diplomatic or political process is capable of succeeding in dissolving Hezbollah's military and security wings, I am for it, but I imagine that all these attempts have been exhausted."

He continued: "My conviction is that when the state shows determination to the end, there is no longer a need to use force, but the state must show its determination. It must say: it's over. When determination appears, there is no longer a need to use force."

Geagea cited the example of Iraq, saying: "The new Iraqi Prime Minister gave a chance, and said that by the end of September, all armed groups outside the state would have handed over their weapons, and whoever does not hand over their weapons, we will take them from them. Thus, when the equation of determination is clear, there is no need to use force."

In response to a question, the head of the Forces affirmed that "the Lebanese military institution is capable of forcibly disarming," and said: "This is one of the misconceptions we have lived with for twenty years. Of course, the Lebanese military institution is capable, just as the Lebanese state is capable and strong when it actually moves. The Lebanese state is not just the military institution; alongside the latter, there is a group of security institutions, in addition to the judiciary, and a group of other administrations. If they all move together, and peacefully, there is no longer a need to use force."

He added: "For example, not exclusively, what happened in the street following the announcement of the framework agreement, about a week or ten days ago, and when the framework agreement was announced, some Hezbollah supporters took to the street and tried to carry out acts of rioting. We have seen this scene many times in Lebanon. But, for the first time, the army went into the street and immediately stopped them and used severity with them, and I do not want to say force. And within five minutes, everyone returned to their homes." From here, you must show your determination, and say: we have tolerated you for forty years, and now it's over. Either you dissolve yourselves or the state dissolves you. And if the party does not dissolve itself, sometimes the state is forced to use severity." The state uses severity almost every day when pursuing drug smugglers and drug dealers, and sometimes there are casualties, either among the smugglers or the army. Does that mean the state should stop doing its duty? Of course not. Sometimes you are forced to do that."

After noting that "Hezbollah is the core of the problem in Lebanon," he said: "I want us to have a real state so that we can confront the issue of Israel. Is Hezbollah capable of confronting Israel? We saw where the confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel led. About 17 or 18 days ago, when military operations in the south were at their peak, had President Trump not intervened, in my estimation, within a week or ten days, Hezbollah would have been forced to surrender. I do not know if President Trump knew exactly what was happening, but he intervened and pressured Israel, so it stopped. The fighting between Hezbollah and Israel, we saw where it led. There is only one solution: Hezbollah has played its role, and in our view, it played its role for the interest of Iran, not for the interest of Lebanon. And now it's over. Hezbollah's military and security wings must be dissolved immediately."

As for the state's ability to reach an agreement guaranteeing an Israeli withdrawal, Geagea answered, "Quite simply and quite frankly, were it not for Hezbollah's presence in Lebanon, we would have saved hundreds and thousands of problems for Lebanon and there would have been no possibility for Israel to enter a single inch into Lebanon." So let us end the problem of armed Hezbollah, not political Hezbollah. The political party can operate according to Lebanese laws and the Lebanese constitution, and it has the right like any other Lebanese, but we must end the military and security existence of Hezbollah." Thus, the Lebanese state becomes strong. And I am not saying it will have more tanks or more planes, but it becomes strong through its legitimacy, so that all of Lebanon's friends help it, and Israel leaves and is forced to leave southern Lebanon."

He noted that "dozens of Israeli officials have said they have no ambitions in Lebanese territory, and they are ready to withdraw from Lebanon as soon as the Hezbollah problem is resolved." Therefore, all conditions are ripe for us to get rid of the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon, but what is required is for a real state to exist in Lebanon."

Regarding any political proposal based on granting Hezbollah gains in exchange for giving up its weapons, Geagea rejected this hypothesis "because we told Hezbollah what we told him; Hezbollah has disrupted our national, political, and social life for the past forty years. Will we give him a price for this disruption? Certainly not."

He added: "We have the Taif Agreement, which gives participation to all Lebanese parties as they should in the state. So, because Hezbollah brought weapons from Iran, will we give him a price for these weapons, which have brought us calamity and ruin for forty years? Absolutely not. The principle itself is rejected."

Regarding reconsidering the Lebanese political system, Geagea said: "For about a hundred years until today, have we, as Lebanese citizens, experienced four or five years of stable life? Of course, we have never witnessed that. I am now over seventy years old, and not for a single day have we lived comfortably. Does that not necessitate reconsidering what brought us to these conditions?"

He continued: "Even the situation of Hezbollah, had there been a serious state, we would not have reached it. But we reached the Lebanese war, and before it we lived through many problems, and we went through the events of 1958, and others, every three or four years in Lebanon we have a problem, a story, and a narrative. We must stop at this reality. This is not just an opinion." The Lebanese citizen has the right to live in a stable situation. The citizen living today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, or Egypt lives in stable conditions. The economy may strengthen a bit or weaken a bit, and some normal problems may occur as faced by all societies in the world, but no one experiences complete upheavals and complete instability as we do in Lebanon every four or five years or every seven or eight years." Since we gained our independence, no long period has passed without a problem: in 1949 we had a problem, in 1958 we had a problem, in 1967 we had a problem, in 1969 we had a problem, between 1975 and 1990 we had a full war, and after that the era of resistance movements began, and we are still in it until now. And even away from the resistance movements, no period passes without us having a problem." Based on this, we must delve into this reality to find out why this happens to us, and reconsider the entire situation, to reach a formula for the state that ensures long-term stability for Lebanese citizens."

Regarding the proposed solutions, Geagea said: "I hope there will be a national dialogue for us to sit and discuss, as there are many solutions on the table. The only solution that should not be on the table is partition, and we must exclude this solution." He added: "Some propose the federal solution, some propose expanded decentralization, and others propose merely administrative decentralization. We want to review these solutions and see what we can do together, because no single party in Lebanon is capable of determining Lebanon's destiny."

On the Syrian issue, Geagea described the visit of Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani as "very positive," and said: "It did not have direct results, but it expressed a positive reality that has emerged between Lebanon and Syria over the past year or so, unlike the reality of the past fifty years." In the days of the Assad regime, Syria was a state constantly conspiring against Lebanon, not just at a certain stage. Now, for the first time, we feel that we have a neighboring and friendly state for Lebanon. Al-Shaibani's visit highlighted this reality and showed this situation, i.e., there is a sister state that does not interfere with anyone, does not fabricate problems, and does not send us armed groups."

He continued: "Despite all the calls from the President of the United States to President Ahmad al-Sharaa to intervene in Lebanon, the Syrian President says: No, I do not intervene in Lebanon. And this is an honorable position. And we consider that President al-Sharaa, as the new president of Syria, expresses a new approach in Syrian politics."

Regarding the existence of fears about the intentions of the new Syrian government towards Lebanon, Geagea answered, "If I wanted to take all of President al-Sharaa's statements, frankly I do not find anything to worry about. I have not seen anything that causes concern. I saw a state-oriented proposal first and foremost. There is a state speaking, not the Baath Party. A state speaking with the logic of a state, and it knows that there is another neighboring state, not a piece of land taken from it by the Sykes-Picot Agreement that it wants to see how to get back, even indirectly." President al-Sharaa's proposal is moderate and logical, and therefore I have no question marks in this context."

Regarding the possibility of a new Syrian military intervention in Lebanon, the head of the Forces reiterated that "everything issued by President al-Sharaa indicates that he is not prepared to intervene in Lebanon, and therefore all this matter is not on the table. Also, the official Lebanese authorities are completely against it, so I do not think anything of this sort is likely to happen."

Regarding the relationship with the Progressive Socialist Party, Geagea said, "We have not entered and will not enter into any verbal or media exchange between us and the Progressive Socialist Party, because we have many common denominators."

Regarding the March 14 alliances, he said: "On the contrary, these orientations have expanded greatly. There was March 14 and March 8, and today what remains of March 8 has become limited, if we want to say, entirely to Hezbollah and a 'tinge' of support from the Amal Movement. While all other Lebanese have practically become in the position of March 14, regardless of their political relations with each other." If we notice, all Lebanese spectra at the present time are heading in the direction of March 14, i.e., they are proposing in politics what March 14 had been proposing since 2005 until today."

Regarding the reopening of Saudi markets to Lebanese products, Geagea said, "We are certainly in a new phase in Lebanon, with the new President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the existing governmental majority, and the existing parliamentary majority. We have a majority in various key positions in the Lebanese state: the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the government, and the Parliament. With this current formation, we have certainly entered a new phase. Of course, within this majority, there is no disagreement in viewpoint, but a difference in the speed at which the Lebanese state should proceed. But, even if it continues at the speed it is going at present, we are covering not insignificant distances, and this is what prompted the Saudi Crown Prince to reopen the doors of the Kingdom to Lebanese exports."

Geagea concluded: "In my opinion, history has never turned back and will not turn back. And if we have so far covered 60 or 70 percent of the road towards establishing a real state in Lebanon, the biggest proof is the negotiations being conducted by the Lebanese authority, whether right or wrong. This shows that there is an independent Lebanese authority that is conducting the negotiations itself, and does not leave Iran to negotiate on behalf of Lebanon. There is a Lebanese authority that does not leave anyone inside Lebanon to again disturb the tranquility of the Lebanese state's relations with sister states, foremost among them the Gulf states and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Arab states, and even foreign states. From this standpoint, yes, I can say that the train is on the tracks. The issue now is for it to cover the entire required distance."