Hezbollah Threatens Any 'Supervising Force' — Is It Protecting Its Arms?

Among the issues being examined in the Rome negotiations between Lebanon and Israel— one of the key factors delaying progress on model zones and their expansion southward—is the mechanism for verifying the demilitarization of areas handed over to the Lebanese army and the withdrawal of the Israeli military.

Several proposals are currently under discussion, including assigning this task to UNIFIL forces, establishing a purely European or Italian monitoring force, or other options currently undergoing deep analysis between Beirut, Washington, and Tel Aviv. However, according to senior political sources speaking to "Al-Markaziyya," it is certain that forming such a military force is unavoidable, with both the Israeli and American sides particularly insistent on it, fearing a repeat of the scenario following the adoption of Resolution 1701 and the October 27 agreement, when Hezbollah was expected not to rearm or dig tunnels in the south—but did so anyway.

Hezbollah understands that the world has learned and will no longer tolerate the group rebuilding itself. From this awareness, in a significant development, it is threatening any international force that might come to Lebanon to oversee its military withdrawal from the south. On Monday, Hussein al-Hajj Hassan, member of the Resistance Loyalty bloc and a Member of Parliament, addressed the Lebanese authorities: "Neither you nor the armies you threaten are capable of disarming the resistance, nor will we hand over our weapons. Any army coming to our country with the mission of disarming the resistance is an occupying army." The same threatening stance had previously been voiced by multiple Hezbollah officials over recent weeks.

The group resorts to such threats to make any nation think twice before sending troops to the south. And, according to sources, what makes this dangerous is Hezbollah’s precedents of targeting foreign and international forces in Lebanon. Can Iran be requesting it again to protect its arms, which it considers the cornerstone of Iranian influence in Lebanon? Or have major regional shifts made such bold moves too risky for the group now?