Steven Sahiounie, journalist and political commentator
Lebanon is entering a delicate political and security phase, in which internal projects to rebuild the state intersect with unprecedented regional and international pressure—amid ongoing Israeli aggression in the South, a deepening economic crisis, and the erosion of citizens’ confidence in state institutions. In this context, several pivotal issues emerge that will shape the features of the coming stage.
Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Brigadier General Mounir Chahada, former Lebanese Government Coordinator to UNIFIL, to get his unique analysis on Lebanon at the crossroads.
1. Steven Sahiounie (SS): How is Lebanon’s new plan to place all weapons under state control—through an army-led strategy—impacting Hezbollah’s influence and the country’s internal security dynamics?
Brigadier General Mounir Chahada (MC): The monopoly of arms and its impact on Hezbollah and internal balance.
The new Lebanese plan to place all weapons under state authority—through a strategy led by the Lebanese Army—aims to redefine the concept of sovereignty and national security. In practice, this step cannot be separated from Hezbollah’s military and political role. Although the plan is presented as a gradual framework, it seeks to reduce informal military influence and restore the military institution as the sole reference of force.
Yet the impact of this plan on Hezbollah remains limited, as the party still enjoys a broad social base and links its weapons directly to the conflict with Israel. Therefore, any fundamental shift in the internal balance of power will depend on a comprehensive domestic political agreement on a defensive strategy—after Israel withdraws from occupied points, ends its aggression, and halts its violations—and on regional guarantees that are still unavailable.
2. SS: What are the implications of Lebanon’s request for a new international force to replace UNIFIL after its mandate expires, and how might this affect stability along the southern border with Israel?
MC: Replacing UNIFIL and the question of border stability.
Lebanon’s request for a new international force to replace UNIFIL after its mandate expires opens the door to complex scenarios. On one hand, the request reflects Lebanese dissatisfaction with the current force’s effectiveness in deterring repeated Israeli violations. On the other hand, it raises concerns that a more rigid force could trigger tension rather than act as a stabilizing factor.
Any change in the nature or tasks of the international force will directly affect the fragile stability in the South—especially if it lacks internal Lebanese consensus or becomes a political pressure tool on Lebanon in the file of the resistance’s weapons.
It is worth noting that the United States and Israel sought to terminate UNIFIL’s mission last August, in a move indicating Israel’s expansionist intentions after the force’s departure. However, this effort did not succeed, and the mission was extended for a final term until August 2026.
3. SS: Considering recent high-profile legal proceedings such as the release on bail of a former economy minister amid corruption allegations, what concrete steps should Lebanese institutions take to improve transparency, accountability, and public trust?
MC: Judicial reform and restoring public confidence.
Recent decisions to release former officials accused of corruption on bail have renewed public scrutiny of the judiciary. Restoring trust requires concrete measures, including:
Strengthening judicial independence—financially and administratively.
Expediting major corruption trials without selectivity.
Enacting clear legislation for recovering stolen assets.
Activating oversight and accountability bodies free from political interference.
Without these steps, reform slogans will remain devoid of credibility.
4. SS: What are the key economic challenges and opportunities facing Lebanon today, and is there any measurable progress toward economic recovery after years of financial crisis?
MC: The economy between collapse and opportunities for recovery.
Lebanon still faces massive economic challenges—from currency collapse, to a crippled banking sector, to rising poverty rates. Yet limited opportunities for recovery remain, most notably:
Restructuring the banking sector.
Revitalizing the energy, tourism, and services sectors.
Benefiting from any future gas discoveries.
To date, one cannot speak of genuine recovery—only modest indicators of relative stabilization, conditioned on reforms and international support.
5. SS: How do recent diplomatic efforts, such as the Paris talks involving the U.S., France, and Saudi Arabia, and the new Lebanon–Cyprus maritime boundary agreement, affect Lebanon’s strategic position in the Eastern Mediterranean and its relations with neighboring states?
MC: Lebanese diplomacy and regional positioning.
International meetings—particularly the Paris talks involving the United States, France, and Saudi Arabia—reflect an attempt to reinsert Lebanon into regional equations. The agreement on maritime border delimitation with Cyprus also strengthens Lebanon’s position in the Eastern Mediterranean and opens the door to cooperation in the energy file.
However, these moves remain fragile unless supported by a unified foreign policy and internal stability that would enable Lebanon to transition from an arena of conflict to a regional partner.
6. SS: With ongoing Israeli airstrikes and international pressure tied to Hezbollah’s disarmament under the Homeland Shield Plan, how realistic is the Lebanese government’s goal of fully disarming Hezbollah by the end of 2025, and what are the main obstacles to implementation?
MC: The realism of disarming Hezbollah by 2026.
Given ongoing Israeli airstrikes and international pressure tied to the “Homeland Shield” plan, the goal of fully disarming Hezbollah by the end of 2025 appears more ambitious than realistic. The main obstacles include:
The absence of a comprehensive regional settlement.
The refusal of a large segment of Lebanese society to tie internal security to external dictates.
The persistence of the Israeli threat, its occupation of five disputed points, and its refusal to withdraw.
Thus, any realistic path must be gradual, negotiated, and linked to building a strong state capable of actually protecting its borders and citizens.
Lebanon stands at a crossroads: either capitalizing on the international moment to rebuild the state on the foundations of sovereignty and law, or continuing crisis-management at the lowest possible threshold. The decisive factor will not lie in plans alone, but in political will—and in the ability to turn slogans into actions.
Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist.