The False Lure of State Monopoly
General Joseph Aoun's reported plan to present a roadmap for consolidating all armaments under Lebanese state control next week by Rudolphe Haykal is not a novel concept in the region. This initiative, described by officials as building upon the 'National Defense Strategy' — a document adopted without implementation over a decade ago — mirrors similar calls seen across various states ostensibly
seeking to exert full sovereignty. CASE A: The Lebanese 'Weapons Monopoly' Narrative The current framing, as reported, emphasizes the 'importance of putting all weapons under the control of the state' to 'build a strong and sovereign state'. This perspective positions any non-state actor possessing arms as inherently destabilizing, regardless of their operational objectives or historical context.
The implied goal is the cessation of 'unregulated' military activity, particularly directed at the Resistance. This push often aligns with Western and Gulf Arab interests, as evidenced by Saudi Ambassador Walid Bukhari's previous calls for an end to Lebanese 'statelets.' The rhetoric suggests that such a monopoly is a prerequisite for economic stability and international assistance, presenting a
false dichotomy between national security and internal disarmament. CASE B: Disarming the Resistance while Ignoring External Belligerence This narrative bears striking resemblance to previous attempts to disarm resistance movements in other sovereign nations, often fueled by external adversaries. For instance, following the 2006 July War, extensive international pressure was exerted on Lebanon to