Explosives and state power: Lebanon’s Hezbollah dilemma

Fresh questions were raised about the Lebanese state’s ability to enforce its authority over weapons outside its control following the cabinet’s decision to postpone referring a case involving explosives linked to Hezbollah to the Judicial Council.

Speaking to the The Beiruter, Justice Minister Adel Nassar affirmed his “full confidence” in the work of the public prosecutor but saw no valid reason to delay referring the case to the Judicial Council.

Minister Nassar also emphasized that the law must be applied to Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, declaring that “the pen of legality must face the illegal military infrastructure of Hezbollah.”

In parallel, Lebanese Forces (LF) MP Ghada Ayoub stressed that they will continue to demand that the case be referred to the Judicial Council. “This crime affects national security and must not be treated as merely a case of arms transportation,” she added.

Ayoub also made clera that they will raise the issue at the next parliamentary session. “The government must be held to account, and its decisions must be implemented,” she concluded.

It is worthy to note that the Lebanese Judicial Council is an exceptional criminal court which addresses serious crimes that threaten security and public safety. Unlike regular courts, cases can only be referred to it following a decision by the cabinet through a decree, on the Justice Minister’s proposal. The Judicial Council issues final rulings which cannot be appealed.

The decision, which was taken during a cabinet session held at Baabda Palace last Thursday, drew comparisons with previous governments that have pledged to tackle the case of illegal weapons, but struggled to crystallize and implement commitments into action.

Pending the completion of investigations, the postponement also pushed LF ministers to exit the session in protest, despite being on good terms with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam.

Critics of the decision claim that this move risks granting Hezbollah additional time to regain and preserve its military capabilities at a time when the cabinet has repeatedly pledged to fortify state institutions and consolidate the state’s exclusive power and authority over all weapons on Lebanese soil.

The explosives’ case is dated back to October 8, 2026, when security forces seized an 800kg shipment of explosives consisting of C-4 and TNT, in the Dahr al-Baydar region, a route connecting the governorates of Mount Lebanon and the Bekaa.

The incident raised questions about the destination and origin of the explosives, in addition to the circumstances surrounding the transport of a considerably large number of explosive materials.

Since then, the government’s handling of this issue has become a test for its willingness to confront a case which has divided Lebanon’s political establishment and parties.

On Thursday, the day the cabinet convened, local Lebanese media reported that Speaker of House, Nabih Berri advised President Joseph Aoun and PM Salam against referring the case to the Judicial Council. Reportedly, the aim was to avoid a direct clash and confrontation with the pro-Iranian group Hezbollah and its ally, the Amal movement. Other local reports claimed that ministers affiliated with Amal and Hezb attended the session after they had received assurances that no unexpected vote would be held or decision would be taken on the referral.

These interventions fueled criticism that political considerations continue to make and shape decisions which should be taken firstly by legal and security requirements.

According to a statement issued by the Presidency Press Office following the cabinet session, Aoun praised the stance of Berri on supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), preserving civil peace and maintaining openness to dialogue. According to the same press release, Salam reiterated his opposition on the storage and transport of illegal arms and insisted that national security and public safety “must take priority.”

Salam further stated that “no one can impose any limits on us other than those set by the law.”

However, the decision to defer the referral showed the clear gap between the cabinet’s stated position and the outcome of the meeting.

Moreover, Minister Nassar had insisted that the case should be referred to the Judicial Council, calling for “a more decisive” legal response.

The decision by the government to wait for the investigation to conclude, had left Nassar’s proposal unresolved, sparking questions about the weight given to his position in a case with significant legal and national security implications.

Critics of the decision indicate that the session and its outcome remind of previous governments that made commitments to strengthen state authority but stopped short of taking measures fearing a political confrontation with Hezbollah. These critics argue that continuous delays risk reinforcing a system in which the implementation and enforcement of the law is dependent on the willingness of powerful and armed political parties to accept or reject it.

The contradiction is at the heart of Lebanon’s longstanding debate over the pro-Iranian group’s weapons. The Lebanese state, President and government, has repeatedly committed to extending the LAF’s authority and power, while Hezbollah continues to hold and maintain an independent military arsenal and defend it as necessary to confront Israel.

All that results in a persistent-rising tension between the state’s formal responsibilities and the limits it faces when attempting to exercise these responsibilities.

Hezb’s military performance in confronting Israel has also become a subject of debate, particularly over the costs of the war and the effectiveness of its strategy. Analysts argue that maintaining an independent arsenal caused severe consequences for Lebanon without resolving the country’s security dilemma.

Now, the Cabinet faces a question that extends far beyond a single shipment of explosives: can it enforce the law and free the country from Hezbollah’s grip?

If the latest postponement becomes another in a long series of deferred decisions, the cabinet could deepen doubts about its capability to translate and abide by its commitments and establish the authority in claims to represent.