Daoud Rammal, "Akhbar al-Yawm" agency

Restoring Sovereignty: State Monopoly on Arms as a Pillar of Stability

As international support mounts...

Lebanon stands once again at a historic juncture, one that demands courage, clarity, and national will. In a country long weighed down by its turbulent past and fragile present, the question of who holds the right to arms has resurfaced as a defining challenge. And this time, it must not be deferred.

Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri’s recent remarks have brought the issue back into sharp focus. On the surface, his comments may seem like a reiteration of long-standing positions. But a closer reading reveals a calculated and deliberate opening: a call to initiate a broad national dialogue on the exclusive right of the state to possess and control weapons.

Berri’s formula is clear: the more credible the international guarantees, and the fewer the external threats, the more urgent and achievable the objective of arms exclusivity becomes. This is not a retreat but an invitation to move beyond slogans and toward a transitional framework in which state authority is re-established as the sole guardian of national security.

Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea framed the moment as a historic opportunity for serious dialogue, emphasizing that arms exclusivity is not a negotiable detail but the foundation of state authority. His response signaled readiness for a structured national effort to restore the state’s sole control over security and decision-making.

What is now taking shape behind the scenes, according to informed political sources, is a serious and structured negotiation process. Its central aim is to enshrine the state’s exclusive right to control the use of force, to decide on matters of war and peace, and to prevent the misuse of arms by non-state actors under various pretexts. This emerging path enjoys wide international backing and is driven not by foreign agendas, but by a shared interest in preventing Lebanon’s total collapse.

For the first time in years, international actors appear less interested in issuing diktats and more committed to a true partnership. The goal is no longer mere containment, it is stability. The world has realized that continued ambiguity over who holds arms in Lebanon is no longer tolerable, and that the cost of internal fragmentation is simply too high.

Still, some factions continue to cling to outdated narratives. These "resistance" voices seek to portray the arms debate as a divisive confrontation between the presidency and sovereign political forces. Through fear-based messaging and sectarian rhetoric, they attempt to paint any move toward state consolidation as a threat to communal identities. But the facts on the ground tell another story. The past 66 days of intensified confrontation have left the country reeling, with lives lost, livelihoods destroyed, and yet another reminder that the absence of a single, unified authority is a recipe for national disaster.

There is no more room for illusions. Lebanon cannot afford to sustain a parallel power structure, nor can it survive further bouts of selective sovereignty. The path forward requires bold decisions and an honest reckoning with reality: the state must reclaim its role as the sole authority over arms, security, and national defense.

This moment, rare and fleeting, may well be Lebanon’s last real chance to lay the foundations of a sustainable future. The debate has begun, and it must continue, not as an academic exercise, but as a foundational workshop to build a republic rooted in the rule of law, equal citizenship, and unchallenged state authority.