Shafaq News
International pressure intensifies, and calls
grow louder to confine weapons to state authority. This renewed debate unfolding
across the Middle East over the future of armed factions in Iraq, Lebanon,
Gaza, and Yemen come amid an open-ended war in Gaza, escalating tensions in the
Red Sea, and sustained US pressure on Baghdad and Beirut—set against the firm
insistence of factions aligned with the so-called “Axis of Resistance” that
their weapons constitute an existential guarantee rather than a negotiable
asset.
Within this context, Lebanese academic Ghazi
Qansou, Dean of the College of Islamic Studies at the Islamic University of
Lebanon, offers a comparative analytical framework to assess the likelihood of
disarmament—or confrontation with Washington—among these groups. His evaluation
rests on four core criteria: the nature of engagement with the United States,
independent military capability, linkage to state structures, and the
possibility of integrating arms into a political settlement.
Speaking to Shafaq News, Qansou considered Yemen’s
Ansarallah movement (the Houthis) ranks as the most intransigent force. The
group has engaged in direct military confrontation with the United States in
the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab, sustaining its operations despite US-British
strikes. More critically, the Houthis control territory, including the capital
Sanaa, and have transitioned from an insurgent movement into a de facto armed
sovereign actor.
Read more: Zero-sum game: Can the Iran-Israel conflict push Iraq toward the front line?
This transformation, Qansou argues, renders the
prospect of disarmament “nearly impossible.” The Houthis’ weapons are “no
longer a tactical tool but an integral component of their governing authority
and regional leverage.”
Hezbollah follows closely in Qansou’s ranking,
described as “strategically defiant and tactically cautious.” While the group
does not confront Washington directly, it has constructed a long-term
deterrence equation against Israel.
Qansou links Hezbollah’s arsenal directly to the
persistence of the Israeli threat, warning that disarmament would collapse the
existing deterrence balance. However, he notes a narrow theoretical margin for
compromise—conditioned on comprehensive security guarantees and a central role
for the Lebanese state as a sponsor of any final settlement.
Hamas, Qansou contends, occupies a different
category. The movement is “existentially defiant rather than politically
confrontational” toward the United States. It does not fight Washington
directly but engages Israel, which enjoys US military and political backing.
In the absence of a protective state or a viable
political alternative, Hamas’ weapons remain non-negotiable. Yet Qansou
emphasizes that the group’s ability to impose conditions on Washington is
limited, particularly given Gaza’s isolation and the overwhelming power
imbalance.
Ali Baraka, Head of National Relations at Hamas
Movement, echoed Qansou’s assessment about Hamas. Israel has failed to honor
the Sharm el-Sheikh ceasefire agreement reached on October 10, Baraka told
Shafaq News. “As long as Israeli attacks on Gaza persist, demands to disarm the
resistance are illogical.”
“Hamas cannot abandon its weapons while
occupation and aggression continue,” he stressed, adding that resistance arms
will remain until Palestinians secure their full legitimate rights.
Baraka framed the struggle as a national
liberation phase rooted in an occupation dating back to 1948, asserting that
armed resistance remains a historical and national path pursued by Palestinian
factions for decades.
Read more: Lebanon: A nation unraveling tensions overshadow independence
At the bottom of Qansou’s scale are Iraq’s armed
factions, which he views as the least defiant and most susceptible to pressure.
Their partial integration into state structures and their regionally managed
relationships allow for a degree of “rhythm control,” he argues.
While full disarmament remains unrealistic,
Qansou sees space for restructuring and tighter regulation within a state
framework—reflecting Baghdad’s unique balancing act between domestic
sovereignty and external pressure.
Iraqi political analyst Saeed Al-Badri, however,
casts doubt on Washington’s credibility. He pointed out that the United States “has
failed to offer a fair vision that protects regional societies, instead
continuing its military and political backing of Israel.”
According to Al-Badri, armed factions are
unlikely to surrender their weapons and may opt for confrontation if
disarmament is imposed. From their perspective, he said, arms represent the
last line of defense against what they perceive as Israeli-American domination
projects in the region.
From Yemen, Sufyan Al-Omari, Secretary-General
of the Democratic People’s Party (Hashd), paints a starker picture. He believes
the region is accelerating toward a decisive, existential escalation.
Al-Omari told Shafaq News that Washington views
its regional influence as being at stake, while Israel’s right-wing leadership
sees perpetual escalation as essential for political survival. The absence of a
political horizon—amid international paralysis, the war in Ukraine, and
heightened tensions with Iran—deepens the confrontation.
Yet he suggests this phase, while more painful,
could be shorter due to its immense cost to the global economy, energy
security, food supplies, and international supply chains.
Dr. Arif Al-Ameri, Coordinator of Relations for
anti-aggression political parties in Yemen, reinforces this assessment,
describing the abandonment of resistance weapons at this stage as “unlikely.”
Threats persist, he argues, while adversaries continue to arm themselves with
Western and regional backing.
Al-Ameri criticizes disarmament calls as devoid
of real guarantees and rooted in double standards, warning that any attempt to
impose such a path “will fail and may trigger decisive confrontations”—partial
or comprehensive—across multiple arenas.
In contrast, Professor Hussein Al-Deek, a
specialist in international relations at the University of Haifa, advances a
fundamentally different reading. He explained to Shafaq News that a
US-European-Arab decision has crystallized around preventing the continued
existence of what he terms “non-state actors” in the Middle East.
Al-Deek told Shafaq News that the preferred
route begins with internal political understandings. If these fail, he warned,
Israeli or American military force would be imposed to eliminate weapons
outside state authority.
He also points to developments in the West Bank,
sustained pressure on Gaza and Lebanon, and diplomatic efforts in Iraq as
indicators of this trajectory. In his view, Iraq’s reintegration into the “Arab
fold” cannot occur while armed factions remain beyond full state control.
Read more: The War that Never Ends: A century in Palestine
Taken together, these perspectives underscore a
central paradox: while international actors increasingly frame disarmament as a
prerequisite for regional stability, armed factions across the Middle East view
their weapons as inseparable from survival, deterrence, and political leverage.
With wars ongoing, guarantees absent, and trust
deeply eroded, the gap between external demands and internal realities
continues to widen—leaving disarmament less a policy option than a distant
hypothetical in an increasingly militarized regional landscape.
Written and edited by Shafaq News staff.
