Lebanon’s Council of Ministers ordered the military and security forces on Thursday to enforce strict state control over weapons in Beirut, restricting all armed activities to legitimate government forces. The decision came hours after Israel conducted its most extensive coordinated bombing campaign on the capital and surrounding areas since the conflict began in March, resulting in over 200 deaths and 1,000 wounded according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam stated the measure aimed to protect citizens, their safety, and property while reasserting governmental authority in the capital.
The cabinet decision reflects mounting pressure to establish exclusive state control over weapons in Beirut, a region where Hezbollah maintains significant armed presence despite previous disarmament initiatives. However, the measure faced immediate opposition from two ministers aligned with the armed group, signaling deep political divisions within the government on security matters.
Cabinet Enforces Weapons Restriction in Capital
Prime Minister Salam declared that the government would immediately direct the military and security apparatus to “enhance and enforce complete state control over Beirut and restrict all weapons to legitimate forces alone.” Government Spokesman Paul Merhej emphasized that the decision represented a continuation of previous governmental initiatives, though he acknowledged persistent implementation challenges given Hezbollah’s historical resistance to surrendering its arsenal.
The cabinet order also mandated filing an urgent complaint with the United Nations Security Council regarding “escalating and expanding Israeli aggression against Lebanon,” condemning what officials described as “dangerous escalation” undermining regional and international ceasefire efforts.
Political Resistance Emerges Within Government
Two ministers drew immediate criticism from cabinet colleagues for opposing the arms control measure. Both the Health Minister and Labor Minister, identified as aligned with Hezbollah, voted against the resolution, according to Spokesman Merhej. This dissent underscores the fundamental political fractures within Lebanon’s governing structure, where shared government authority masks divergent security agendas.
Israeli Military Campaign Intensifies Pressure
Israel’s military conducted its most comprehensive coordinated bombing operation since the conflict’s March 2 launch on Wednesday. The Israeli Defense Forces claimed the strikes targeted “100 military headquarters and infrastructure installations” belonging to Hezbollah across Lebanese territory, including multiple residential neighborhoods in Beirut. Lebanese health authorities reported initial casualties exceeding 200 dead and over 1,000 wounded from the single day’s operations.
Escalation Defies Earlier Ceasefire Attempts
The airstrikes marked a dramatic deterioration in security despite previous ceasefire arrangements. Lebanon and Israel had maintained a cessation of hostilities since November 2024, brokered through international mediation. However, Israel maintained military presence at five positions in southern Lebanon, preserving operational capability for renewed operations.
The current escalation follows an earlier major confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel spanning 2023 to 2024. In August 2025, the Lebanese government authorized the military to disarm Hezbollah and announced a comprehensive weapons collection plan. Despite these initiatives, the current offensive demonstrates the limitations of unilateral Lebanese disarmament efforts without comprehensive regional security arrangements.
Lebanon Seeks International Recognition of Ceasefire Inclusion
Recognizing Beirut’s vulnerable position outside current regional ceasefire arrangements, Prime Minister Salam contacted Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Thursday requesting confirmation that Lebanon would be included in any US-Iran ceasefire agreement. According to a statement from the Prime Minister’s office, Salam praised Pakistan’s mediation efforts and requested explicit assurance that “the ceasefire must encompass Lebanon to prevent recurrence of the Israeli aggression we witnessed yesterday.”
Conflicting International Positions on Ceasefire Scope
The United States and Israel had already declared that current ceasefire arrangements do NOT include Lebanon, stating that Israel would continue military operations against Hezbollah as a strategic imperative. Israeli officials indicated the campaign against the Iranian-backed group would continue independently of broader regional arrangements.
Conversely, Iran signaled a different interpretation. Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Speaker of Iran’s Consultative Assembly, warned on Thursday that Tehran considers Lebanon “an integral part of the ceasefire,” signaling potential “strong responses” to any violations. This rhetorical positioning increased diplomatic pressure to incorporate the Lebanese front within broader de-escalation frameworks.
Regional Context and Historical Background
The current Lebanese-Israeli confrontation represents an escalation of patterns established over decades. Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organization by Western governments but operating as a political party and armed force within Lebanon, maintains deep strategic alignment with Iran. The group’s 2023-2024 engagement with Israeli forces resulted in hundreds of casualties on both sides before the November ceasefire took effect.
Previous Disarmament Efforts Face Credibility Crisis
Lebanon’s August 2025 government decision to disarm Hezbollah reflected international and domestic pressure to establish exclusive state monopoly over weapons. The military initiated comprehensive collection operations. Yet the current Israeli assault exposes the fragility of weapons control arrangements lacking comprehensive security guarantees from all regional actors. International observers questioned whether unilateral Lebanese disarmament could succeed without parallel constraints on Israeli operations and Iranian support for armed groups.
Humanitarian Impact and Civilian Cost
The concentrated Israeli bombing campaign inflicted severe civilian casualties in Beirut neighborhoods and surrounding areas. Health ministry figures documenting over 1,000 wounded in a single day’s operations indicated the intensity of the aerial assault. The concentration of strikes on claimed Hezbollah infrastructure throughout residential zones raised concerns among humanitarian organizations regarding compliance with international humanitarian law standards governing proportionality and civilian protection.
Broader War Casualties Mount
The conflict extending into Lebanon since March 2026 has claimed more than 1,700 lives according to Lebanese authorities, contributing to regional destabilization affecting millions across multiple countries. The mounting toll underscored the conflict’s expansion beyond Israeli-Palestinian boundaries into regional sectarian and geopolitical dimensions.
Government Response and Diplomatic Strategy
Facing military pressure and constrained by political divisions, the Lebanese government pursued dual-track diplomatic and security responses. The cabinet order represented a forceful assertion of state authority even while recognizing implementation challenges. Simultaneously, diplomatic outreach to Pakistan and implicit appeals to Iran sought to position Lebanon within broader ceasefire frameworks that might provide security guarantees.
Conclusion:
Lebanon’s cabinet decision to enforce state weapons monopoly in Beirut represents a significant assertion of governmental authority in the face of escalating security challenges. Yet the measure’s effectiveness remains uncertain given Hezbollah’s continued armed capacity, Israel’s determination to pursue military operations independently of ceasefire agreements, and political divisions within the Lebanese government itself. The outcome will depend on whether international diplomatic pressure succeeds in incorporating Lebanon within comprehensive regional de-escalation frameworks or whether the conflict continues as a parallel dimension of the broader Middle East crisis.
