Lebanon: explosives shipment reignites power struggle between the government and Hezbollah
The case of an explosives shipment in Lebanon is putting state authority and the standing of its institutions to a new test. Controversy is mounting over the failure to refer the case to the Judicial Council, despite the shipment’s dangerous nature and alleged links to Hezbollah. Presented as a national security matter, the case also raises questions about foreign influence over Lebanon’s domestic decisions.
Experts say the absence of a referral raises concerns that Hezbollah retains the ability to obstruct decisions, particularly on security matters. They cite alleged security threats and domestic and external pressure that prevented decisive action. They warn that failing to hold those involved accountable would weaken the state, entrench competing centres of security decision-making and threaten civil peace.
Against this backdrop, the shipment is portrayed as exposing Hezbollah-linked networks that undermine Lebanese security and facilitate an expansion of Israel’s presence in the country.
State authority at stake
Writer and political analyst Roland Khater pointed to a Lebanese government decision issued on 2 March declaring Hezbollah’s security and military wing unlawful and barring it from conducting either type of activity. He argued that the movement’s continuation of such practices threatened civil peace.
Khater said transporting explosives, or allowing their transport, implicated the state regardless of their intended use. He cited possible assassinations of Lebanese figures—including the president, prime minister or Hezbollah opponents—or operations against Israel that could draw Lebanon into a further escalation. In his view, allowing such activity would make the state share responsibility with Hezbollah for creating the conditions for Israeli strikes on the country.
Khater added that the Lebanese state also threatened civil peace when it overlooked Hezbollah’s conduct and yielded to its pressure. He argued that peace could not be safeguarded while Hezbollah retained its weapons and the authorities failed to enforce the law and their own decisions.
He noted that several political forces had called for the case to be referred to the Judicial Council, including the Lebanese Forces, the Kataeb Party, some pro-sovereignty groups and the prime minister. Such a step, he said, would represent the state reclaiming its political and security powers. He also stressed that the council’s judgments in a case involving Hezbollah-linked networks and members would be final and not subject to appeal or review.
Khater argued that failing to refer the case primarily undermined state authority, leaving the military judiciary in control of the proceedings and giving Hezbollah greater room to influence potential settlements. He alleged that several actors had worked to prevent the referral. In his view, the president’s and government’s decision to wait until the military court and army intelligence completed their investigations cast a shadow over the process, suggesting possible political intervention from within Lebanon or, more significantly, from abroad.
The analyst said the decision had diverted the case from the course it should have followed. Had the referral proceeded, he argued, it could have reached those involved at every level. In his assessment, accusations could then have extended to Hezbollah’s political and military leadership, from its secretary-general to other senior figures, including members of parliament.
A criminal case
Lebanese military expert Georges Nader said the seizure of the shipment indicated a criminal case. Referring it to the Judicial Council would, in his view, mean recognising it as a threat to Lebanese national security.
He said that Hezbollah opposed that characterisation, arguing that the explosives were intended for use against Israel. Nader questioned that account, saying the shipment’s characteristics suggested it was designed to cause the greatest possible number of civilian casualties. He also cited the movement’s history and alleged involvement in previous assassinations.
Nader attributed the failure to refer the case to alleged Hezbollah threats to enter Beirut and destabilise security there, alongside pressure from external actors that had prevented the referral and the necessary action against those involved.
