&w=3840&q=100)
Will Hezbollah surrender its weapons? Lebanese armed group balks as pressure mounts
(File} Hezbollah flags flutter as protesters, rally to show support to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon's Hezbollah, in Sanaa, Yemen, on September 27, 2024. Reuters
Hezbollah is facing mounting pressure to disarm following a devastating war with Israel that shattered its leadership, weakened its military, and raised serious questions about its future in Lebanon's political landscape.
Once hailed as the country's most powerful armed force, Hezbollah now finds itself under intense scrutiny from both domestic and international actors. The group's leader for over 30 years, Hassan Nasrallah, was killed during the conflict, and his mausoleum in southern Beirut has become a sombre rallying point for loyalists, New York Times reported.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The war, triggered by Hezbollah's support for Hamas during the Gaza conflict, drew a heavy Israeli response. Senior Hezbollah commanders were killed, large swathes of southern Lebanon were bombed, and many fighters have since withdrawn. The Lebanese army, backed by UN forces, claims to have removed 90 per cent of Hezbollah's weapons from the south.
The ceasefire agreement requires Hezbollah to vacate an 18-mile zone along the border and prohibits rearmament by nonstate groups. Israel, however, continues to occupy parts of southern Lebanon and launches regular airstrikes, further complicating enforcement.
Despite its weakened position, Hezbollah's new leader Naim Qassem has vowed not to disarm while Israeli forces remain in Lebanon. But its ability to maintain this stance is increasingly uncertain, especially as the United States pushes for a swift disarmament timeline.
Internally, Lebanon is battling economic collapse and urgently needs billions in reconstruction aid. Western donors have made Hezbollah's disarmament a condition for releasing funds, putting pressure on the government to act. President Joseph Aoun has said the Lebanese state must be the sole guarantor of national defence.
Iran, Hezbollah's long-time patron, has stepped back. It remained on the sidelines during the conflict and has seen its influence in Syria, a key logistical route, decline. This has limited Hezbollah's ability to replenish its arsenal.
Public support is also waning. In war-hit communities, many are disillusioned. While the group tries to project the war as a victory, residents speak of loss and destruction, not triumph. Anger is simmering in Hezbollah strongholds, where reconstruction has been slow and aid scarce.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Lebanon now faces a delicate balancing act: dismantle Hezbollah's arsenal without triggering internal unrest. But as Hezbollah's hold weakens and its allies retreat, the group may find itself with fewer options, and even fewer sympathisers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
23 minutes ago
- Mint
Amid racist attacks in Ireland, man asks Indians to adjust to ‘the culture of the country'
Amid a string of racist attacks in Ireland – with a six-year-old girl from Kerala being the latest victim – an Indian expat living in the island nation has asserted that Indians relocating to Ireland should adapt to local Irish culture instead of trying to turn the Western country into 'another India'. 'Shouldn't we as migrants adjust to the culture of the country we are living in? I have seen a lot of Indians trying to make the country they are living in feel like India, even though they left India for a reason. I am not saying you should abandon your culture, but we should respect the culture of the country we are living in and not try to turn it into another India,' reads part of the Reddit post. The user also shared a picture of an Indian passport, claiming that it shows they were born in India. The post has garnered mixed reactions from social media users. Here's how people responded: One individual commented, 'From what I have seen, I think there are two types of Indian migrants: one who understands this and acts accordingly, and the other who knows it but doesn't care and continues to do things his/her way. By that, I mean I have seen people littering on beaches, playing loud music on public transport, etc. I have never seen a well-educated foreign national do it. That's the sad part. And the latter will, of course, irritate the natives, which in turn affects the former as well.' Another added, 'Indian people who make their home in Ireland should absolutely bring their culture with them, but they should also work to integrate with Irish society. Your kids should learn Irish in school. They should play hurling/camogie as well as cricket. Indian food producers should take stalls at Irish farmers' markets. Indian festivals should feature Irish artists as well. Don't shut yourselves off – integrate and help improve this place we call home.' A third user expressed, 'I am not Indian, but I am curious about what you mean by this. I have worked with lots of Indians for 16 years in Ireland, and I haven't met a single one who tried to make Ireland like India. If anything, I have seen the opposite – Indians enjoying the different opportunities and cultural exposure they get in Ireland.' A fourth wrote, 'For context, I'm Irish. That being said, this is pretty much expected of any immigrant in a nation, but even then, it wouldn't really change anything. Racists will still attack people. Harassment will still happen. As far as I know, most immigrants adjust pretty well to Irish culture. A lot of people on the far right just associate cultural assimilation with complete abandonment of your own culture, which is obviously idiotic.' In a recent disturbing incident, a six-year-old girl from Kottayam, Kerala, was subjected to racist abuse by a gang of children aged between 12 and 14 while playing outside her house in Waterford City, in southeast Ireland. According to her mother, the gang punched her daughter in the face, called her 'dirty,' and hit her private parts with a bicycle. This was not the first racist attack targeting someone of Indian origin in Ireland. The country is still reeling from recent incidents in Dublin's Tallaght and Clondalkin areas. In light of the increasing number of racial attacks, the Indian Embassy in Dublin has issued a statement urging Indian citizens in the country to exercise caution.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
23 minutes ago
- First Post
'It's personal': Analyst says Modi's pushback on Op Sindoor ceasefire claim sparked Trump's tariff fury
The analyst was referring to India's firm rejection of Trump's claims that he played a pivotal role in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan following Operation Sindoor read more US President Donald Trump looks on as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaks during a 'Howdy, Modi' rally at NRG Stadium in Houston, Texas, US September 22, 2019. (Photo: Reuters) The recent decision by US President Donald Trump to impose additional tariffs on India, citing the purchase of Russian oil, has sparked debate about the motivations behind this move. Michael Kugelman, a prominent South Asia analyst and Director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington DC, argues that the tariffs are less about economic strategy and more about personal resentment. In an interview with news agency ANI, Kugelman described the situation as the 'worst crisis' in US-India relations in the past two decades, suggesting that Trump's actions stem from taking India's independent stance as a personal slight. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Kugelman pointed out a perceived double standard in Trump's approach, particularly when compared to his treatment of China. When asked why Trump was targeting India but not China, Kugelman explained: '…China has not stood out there and refused to let President Trump take credit for his role in the ceasefire. China has not had its leader have a long conversation with Trump on the phone and essentially dictate to him what's right and what's wrong. These are things that happened with India. So, I think that's why perhaps President Trump would reserve some of his greatest ire on the trade and tariff front for India and for the Indian government. Indeed, it's a double standard. It's hypocritical, whatever you want to say…' The analyst was referring to India's firm rejection of Trump's claims that he played a pivotal role in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan following Operation Sindoor. Trump has repeatedly attributed the halt in hostilities to trade incentives offered by the US, a narrative that India has consistently debunked. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar has previously dismissed any suggestion of external mediation, but it was Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement in Parliament that drove the point home. 'We had said from day one that our action was non-escalatory. No leader in the world asked us to stop Operation Sindoor,' Modi declared from the Parliament, directly challenging Trump's version of events. However, Kugelman's analysis has drawn criticism from some quarters in India. Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal questioned why Modi has refrained from directly confronting Trump's misleading claims. In a post on X, Sibal expressed frustration: 'Why play the charade of giving false credit for a ceasefire based on trade threats and one announced over the head of India's leader, creating thereby impression India was pressured to agree? Trump can keep assailing India as a tariff king, threaten tariffs, talk of his interest in mediating the Kashmir issue but Modi dare not tell him what's right and what's wrong? India has sovereign interests which it has to defend.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Sibal also highlighted what he sees as Trump's inconsistent approach toward China. He noted, 'Chinese spokespersons day in and day out speak disparagingly of the US, talk down at it, express defiance. Yet, Trump is delaying imposing tariffs on China.'
Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump tariffs India: Doesn't it reveal America's double standards?
On August 6, about a week after issuing a sweeping 25 per cent tariff on all Indian imports, US President Donald Trump announced a 25 per cent additional tariff on India over its imports of Russian oil. The new measure raises tariffs on some Indian goods to as high as 50 per cent. This is a wake-up call. This wasn't just a trade policy decision. What started as strong bilateral cooperation has now become a strategic risk point. The US has been one of India's most important defence partners recently, providing equipment and technology transfers. However, this relationship has also led to asymmetries. In times of diplomatic strain, these asymmetries turn into leverage. In a single stroke, the US has demonstrated its willingness to apply pressure on India for geopolitical ends. The tools may be economic, but the target is strategic. This sets a dangerous precedent. In an era of great-power competition, India must keep the ability to make decisions in its national interest without fearing retaliation. Other than economic consequences, the tariffs also hold symbolic significance. They indicate a change in US expectations and a more assertive stance toward India's foreign policy independence. India's increasing trade with Russia is being criticised, yet Western powers maintain stronger economic ties with Moscow. In 2024, India's trade with Russia rose to $68.7 billion, mainly due to energy imports such as crude oil, coal, and fertilisers. That's a tenfold rise compared to 2021 levels. Meanwhile, the EU maintained approximately $78 billion in total trade with Russia during the same period, with about $25 billion spent on fossil fuels alone. Despite sanctions and vocal opposition to Moscow's actions, Europe remains one of Russia's largest trading partners. The United States, while engaging in much less trade, still imported around $5.2 billion in goods and services from Russia in 2024, primarily industrial inputs. Even in the first half of 2025, US imports from Russia totalled approximately $2.5 billion. The contrast is clear: India, while pressured to reduce its ties with Russia, is not operating in isolation. The extent of US and EU trade with Moscow underscores a geopolitical double standard. India faces penalties for engaging in trade that others continue to pursue secretly. This context is crucial when evaluating India's strategic choices. What one country sees as a national security concern, another may view as an economic necessity. India's ongoing partnership with Russia, especially in energy and defence, has become a point of controversy. But the real lesson here isn't about oil. It's about resilience. In the current geopolitical climate, where alliances are fluid and strategic alignments unpredictable, overreliance on any single partner, even the United States, is risky. Strategic autonomy offers a path to a more secure future, demanding diversified dependencies, redundant supply lines, and domestic capacity. After all, India's armed forces operate in a complex threat environment with active, contested borders with both China and Pakistan. A sudden disruption in critical defence supply chains could have immediate, even disastrous, consequences. Here are five steps to prevent that from happening: Accelerate indigenous engine development: India must expedite engine R&D programmes. From the High Thrust Fuel Efficient Engine series to combat jet power plants, local capability should become a top-priority national goal. This effort should involve public sector R&D, private companies, and international co-development on India's terms. Diversify strategic partners: India must strengthen ties with other like-minded democracies, such as France, Japan, Israel, and South Korea, to foster systems, tech, and joint ventures. Diversifying strategic partners not only guards against supply shocks but also encourages technological innovation and knowledge exchange. Relying on multiple sources reduces the risk of any single country weaponising dependency, thereby boosting India's strategic autonomy. Secure critical subsystems locally: From radar modules to guidance chips and propulsion control units, India must develop and produce critical subsystems domestically. Even imported platforms should be gradually 'de-Americanised' wherever feasible through local or alternative integration. Invest big in defence innovation: India's defence R&D spending remains low compared to global standards. A significant increase is needed not only for DRDO but also for startup ecosystems, university labs, and private manufacturing. Flexible funding, efficient trials, and transparent procurement processes are crucial. Implement import substitution at scale: India's negative import list and domestic procurement categories must be enforced strictly. By 2026, India should aim to produce 80-90 per cent of core military systems and subsystems domestically or through balanced joint ventures. If India does not act decisively, the next round of tariffs or sanctions could have immediate operational effects. Delays in sourcing, halted upgrades, or frozen systems might impair India's capacity to respond to crises, military or otherwise. Beyond economics or diplomacy, this concerns warfighting capability, sovereign decision-making, and the ability to defend national interests without foreign interference. The situation also raises broader questions: What is the actual cost of sovereignty? How should a rising power shield its security system from geopolitical unpredictability? And how can India future-proof its defence industry without sacrificing capability? This moment demands more than tactical fixes. It requires a clear national doctrine: no vital system should be entirely dependent on an external power. The writer is a lieutenant colonel, former Armoured Corps officer, defence analyst and strategic thinker
