As the open-ended war in Gaza persists and tensions in the Red Sea reach new heights, a fierce debate has engulfed the Middle East regarding the future of non-state armed groups. From Baghdad to Beirut, intensifying international pressure to confine weaponry to state authority is colliding head-on with the firm insistence of factions aligned with the "Axis of Resistance." For these groups, maintaining independent arsenals is no longer a tactical choice but an existential necessity amidst what they perceive as unchecked aggression.
According to a detailed analysis published by Shafaq News on Sunday, this geopolitical tug-of-war has exposed deep strategic fractures across the region. The outlet reports that diverging views on disarmament have emerged following sustained US pressure on the governments of Iraq and Lebanon. While Western powers frame disarmament as a prerequisite for regional stability, the armed factions view their weapons as the only viable guarantee against external threats, rejecting the notion of their arsenals being negotiable assets.
The complexity of the situation was highlighted by Ghazi Qansou, Dean of the College of Islamic Studies at the Islamic University of Lebanon, who provided a comparative framework for the resistance groups. Qansou identified Yemen’s Ansarallah movement (the Houthis) as the most "intransigent force" in the current landscape. Having transitioned from an insurgency to a de facto sovereign authority controlling Sanaa, the Houthis have engaged in direct military confrontation with US and British forces. Consequently, Qansou argues that disarming the group is "nearly impossible," as their weaponry has become an integral component of their governing authority.
Hezbollah and Hamas occupy a middle ground of "strategic defiance." Hezbollah maintains a long-term deterrence equation against Israel, which Qansou warns would collapse if disarmament were enforced without the Lebanese state assuming a central defense role. Similarly, Ali Baraka, Head of National Relations for Hamas, told reporters that demanding disarmament is illogical while "Israeli attacks on Gaza persist." Baraka cited the failure of Israel to honor the Sharm el-Sheikh ceasefire agreement from October 10 as proof that abandoning weapons would be premature.
At the other end of the spectrum lie Iraq’s armed factions, which analysts view as the most susceptible to pressure due to their partial integration into state structures. While full disarmament remains unrealistic, experts suggest there is room for "restructuring" within the framework of the Iraqi state. However, Iraqi analyst Saeed Al-Badri warned that factions might opt for confrontation if pressed too hard, viewing their arms as the last line of defense against "Israeli-American domination projects."
In stark contrast to the resistance narrative, Hussein Al-Deek, a specialist at the University of Haifa, indicated that a US-European-Arab consensus is crystallizing to end the era of "non-state actors." He warned that if political understandings fail, military force may be the next step to eliminate weapons outside state control.
Ultimately, the region remains trapped in a dangerous paradox. International actors demand disarmament to stop the war, while armed factions refuse to disarm because the war continues. With trust deeply eroded and security guarantees absent, the gap between external demands and internal realities is widening, leaving the prospect of a demilitarized Middle East as a distant, if not impossible, ambition.
Photo: Shafaq News