Reconstruction and the Need for Disarmament

Asharq Al-Awsat

a day ago

The question of the future has gradually begun to outweigh the poetry and ruins of the past since schisms ripped through parts of the region (whether in Lebanon, Yemen, or Syria, where things have radically shifted) and the rogue militias waged their so-called 'support war.'
Dithering is not tenable at this momentous juncture. Every opportunity has a window, and every window eventually expires.
Judging by Lebanese officials' statements, reconstruction appears to be the ultimate national priority. They have watched their Syrian neighbor lay the groundwork for a transition from impossibility to possibility, reopening its doors to key regional actors committed to development and dynamism. This is not an end but the beginning: a tipping point that will determine whether hopes for the future are realized.
These opportunities, once granted, are not permanent. Their lifespan depends on the resolve and choices of those who receive it, and development and reconstruction demand a firm commitment to implementation.
The question of Hezbollah's disarmament has dominated the public discourse in Lebanon over the past week. There is no doubt that it is a crucial issue: without disarmament, Lebanon cannot become a coherent political state that others can engage with on an equal footing. Lebanon's statehood will remain lacking so long as Hezbollah retains its weapons. This debate cannot be resolved without domestic determination to put Lebanon on a clear track: bringing arms under the authority of the state, an objective endorsed by the President.
The bigger challenge is the wily dithering of other actors who continue to stoke sectarian tensions, play political tricks, and spread panic by insisting that disarmament would trigger civil war. These tactics are intolerable. There has never been a more opportune time for Lebanon to dismantle its militias than the present: Hezbollah has been seriously weakened, and the Assad regime has been toppled. There is no justification for delaying disarmament any further.
The turmoil resulting from the militias' adventurism over the past year, and beyond, has caused immense pain on a human level, drained economies, and devastated the region. Nonetheless, we must study its aftermath. There are elements that can be amended and corrected: ending the era of rogue militias, changing the trajectories of troubled states, and ensuring that such crises are not repeated.
Political Islamist movements are inherently hostile to the concept of the state. They must be confronted and criminalized. That is what the governments of moderate Arab states have done through decrees and legislation that have made such movements illegal.
During this harrowing period, we heard the wounded prioritize life over death, health over illness, and development over fragility, disorientation, displacement, and loss. The existential decline we are currently witnessing is deeply dangerous. I believe the solution will not come from ideologues or sloganeers, but from those committed to building. That is the path Saudi Arabia has pursued, striving to salvage what remains after the overwhelming catastrophe.
In short, restoring state authority, that of any state, is the key to serious dialogue with others. No country can diplomatically engage with a state whose institutions are compromised by the operations of militias. The growing developmental discourse presents a genuine opportunity, but unless these visions are acted upon, the underlying challenges will persist. How can an armed faction that unilaterally decides questions of war and peace be part of the government?
Political leaders must face up to a profound reckoning: an era has ended. That time has passed. We are now in an age of rising visions, ambitious development, and new ideas. But who is ready to grasp this shift?