Mohamed Ezz‏‏

One of the key trends that has been shaping the security landscape of the Middle East since the beginning of 2025 is the concerted effort by state actors, as well as certain regional and international powers, to disarm militias who have become major disruptors of regional affairs. Some observers argue that the most prominent feature of the first quarter of the 21st century is the rise of non-state armed actors, many of whom now resemble parallel armies, possessing economic resources and engaging in state-like diplomatic relations with both regional and international powers. These actors have come to be described by terms such as "quasi-state," "de facto authority," or even "a state within a state."As defined in political literature, the disarmament approach refers to the collection of weapons and ammunition from all armed factions, militias, paramilitary groups, and combatants, in a bid to end what has become a chaotic proliferation of arms and to reassert the state’s monopoly on arms. This concept echoes Max Weber’s classical definition of the state as "the sole entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence". This is further reinforced by growing regional calls to reestablish stronger state authority, particularly the increasingly destabilizing acts of these groups. The threats these groups impose manifested in the wake of the multiple waves of uprisings in the Middle East from 2011 to 2019 and until 2024. Reflective CasesSeveral domestic and international developments underscore the central role of disarmament efforts in limiting the influence of non-state armed actors. These include:1- Disarming Hamas and Ending the Fifth Gaza War: Israel has made the disarmament of Hamas a key condition for ending the current war in Gaza. It also demands the departure of Hamas members and leadership from the Gaza Strip, ensuring the group plays no role in the "day after" arrangements once the guns fall silent, in addition to the release of all hostages. In this context, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas expressed support for the Israeli proposal that Hamas should "lay down its arms" and "end its rule over Gaza" as part of the vision for a future Palestinian state. In a letter addressed to French President Emmanuel Macron on June 10, 2025, just ahead of the United Nations conference on the two-state solution, Abbas reiterated these points, while also stressing the need for the release of all hostages, according to the Élysée Palace.2- Disarming Hezbollah and Reestablishing State Control in Lebanon: Reestablishing the state’s monopoly on arms has emerged as a top priority for the Lebanese government under Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. Despite recent successes by the Lebanese Armed Forces in reclaiming several Hezbollah strongholds in southern Beirut, other areas remain beyond state control — highlighting the entrenched power Hezbollah has amassed over the years, both within state structures and in opposition. The group has consistently refused to engage in any disarmament dialogue unless framed within the context of "national sovereignty." In fact, Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem declared that "the idea of disarmament is off the table."Nevertheless, both domestic and international actors continue to pressure the Lebanese state, asserting that reconstruction and long-term stability are impossible as long as weapons remain outside government control. The current government secured its parliamentary mandate on the clear premise of rejecting the presence of any armed groups beyond the army and official security forces, arguing that the continued existence of such weapons poses a threat to internal stability. Hezbollah, however, insists that disarmament can only occur if Israel withdraws from southern Lebanon and ceases its ongoing airstrikes. The group argues that giving up its arms would undermine Lebanon’s capacity to resist Israeli aggression. From a U.S. perspective, however, Hezbollah’s disarmament is viewed as an integral part of President Donald Trump’s maximum pressure campaign against Iran.This leaves unresolved questions: Will the Lebanese state succeed in imposing the principle of "no arms outside the state’s legitimacy"? Will it dismantle Hezbollah’s state-within-a-state model? Or will the group continue to dictate terms under its long-standing formula of "arms-for-occupation"?&nbsp;3- Initiating the Process of Weapons Withdrawal from Palestinian Camps in Lebanon: For years, the disarmament of Palestinian refugee camps has long been a major security issue in Lebanon. Over time, these camps have evolved into semi-autonomous zones, operating largely beyond the reach of Lebanese security forces, with internal security managed by armed factions. However, a significant shift appears underway. During Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s visit to Lebanon in May 2025, an agreement was reached with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to launch a phased executive plan to withdraw weapons from the camps, starting in June with those located in Beirut and later expanding to others. This agreement was formalized during the inaugural meeting of a newly established joint committee mandated to oversee the security situation in the camps and ensuring that all weapons are eventually brought under state control.This move was echoed in numerous statements signaling a new official Lebanese stance. The Prime Minister stated that these weapons "no longer serve the interests of the Palestinian people," and warned that they could become instruments of internal strife, whether Palestinian-Palestinian or Palestinian-Lebanese.He added: "The strength of the Palestinian cause today does not lie in the arms hidden in the camps of Lebanon. It lies in the growing number of countries recognizing the State of Palestine, in the hundreds of thousands marching in solidarity across the globe, and in the rulings of international courts that condemn Israel and its practices."4- Syrian National Dialogue Conference Calls for State’s Monopoly on Arms: The newly established Syrian administration faces a crucial test of its ability to navigate a smooth political transition: asserting exclusive state control over all weapons. Several armed factions remain active, particularly those distrustful of the new regime’s stance toward minorities. During the Syrian National Dialogue Conference held in February 2025, participants emphasized that all armed factions operating outside state authority should be treated as unlawful and stressed the need to build a unified national army. However, segments of society excluded from the dialogue process have rejected the call, perceiving it as directed against them. Consequently, they continue to hold onto their weapons as a means of safeguarding their existence.5. Iraqi Government Rejects the Duality of Arms Approach: Iraq has struggled with the proliferation of uncontrolled weapons ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein and the U.S. occupation. Over the past two decades (2005–2025), successive Iraqi governments have failed to resolve the issue of the proliferation of arms beyond the authority of the military and state security institution, due to a combination of contributing factors.In a televised interview with Sky News Arabia on May 15, 2025, Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al Sudani reiterated his government’s firm rejection of the "duality of arms" approach, declaring that arms must rest solely in the hands of the state. He affirmed that his administration possesses a clear roadmap for achieving this goal. Nonetheless, the challenge remains formidable given societal incentives and regional dynamics that continue to enable militias and individuals in Iraq to retain weapons outside state control.6- Disarming the PKK and Ending Its Armed Struggle with Turkey: In May 2025, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) released a cautious political statement and video message announcing the end of its armed conflict with the Turkish state. The group called for a shift in Kurdish leadership toward civilian political parties and a transition to what it termed the "Democratic Nation Path" effectively signaling a move away from armed struggle and toward peaceful political engagement. The Turkish government welcomed the announcement with measured optimism. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan described the move as "important" but emphasized that its credibility hinges on concrete implementation, including the disarmament of the group’s military and political arms in Syria, Iraq, and Europe.7- Disarming Militias and the Dilemma of Political Transition in Libya: Since the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s militias have evolved into "territorial brigades", each asserting control over specific regions and obstructing any agreements or compromises that could pave the way for a national transition from conflict to stability. Recent moves by the Libyan army have heightened concerns among the militias, prompting many to retain arms outside state control as a means to preserve a climate of disorder over a potential return to gradual state and institutional recovery. Yet, the transition necessitates the dismantling and disarmament of powerful militias, the possible integration of some fighters into state institutions, the withdrawal of foreign mercenaries, and the organization of general elections. 8- The Elusive Dilemma of Disarming the Houthis in Yemen: Military strikes by the Arab Coalition intended to restore Yemeni legitimacy, along with targeted attacks by the United States and Israel against Houthi forces in 2024 and 2025, have focused on two primary dimensions: first, to counter Houthi disruption of maritime traffic and global trade by targeting vessels with ties to Israel; and second, to weaken one of Iran’s key proxies, whose activities remain unchecked as of mid-2025. However, what remains missing is a serious effort to curb the Houthis’ internal dominance and incorporate them into Yemen’s political process as one actor among many, rather than the singular ruling force; a shift that has yet to occur.State Legitimacy In conclusion, the phenomenon of dual authority over arms, between the legitimacy of nation-states and the weapons held by armed groups, will remain a defining feature of regional dynamics for years to come. This dilemma has widespread implications beyond the region because they may trigger global actors to intervene militarily. The United States may launch targeted military action against these groups, especially those aligned with or backed by Iran. This comes amid a waning Iranian influence, with the major blows done to its proxies as well as infrastructure damage during the war with Israel. In parallel, some militia leaders have been subjected to international sanctions issued by the UN Security Council as a form of mounting pressure. Yet the core challenge facing formal state institutions across the Middle East is the absence of viable alternative strategies in the event of failed disarmament efforts. Thus, the battle between state authority and militia power will likely persist.

How Disarming Militias Could Reshape Middle Eastern Security