A historic session of the Council of Ministers with its resolutions, and a stance by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam that will be recorded in gold. The showdown was clear between the state, adhering to the constitution, and “Hezbollah,” which has turned against it. In this sense, it can be said that “Hezbollah” carried out a coup against the constitutional institutions, but the Council of Ministers responded to the coup by affirming the timeline for confining weapons to the Lebanese state.
The standoff began at 3:00 p.m., with the cabinet session starting at 5:00 p.m. under the chairmanship of President Joseph Aoun. At that time, Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem delivered his “political bombs,” which constituted a coup against the constitution and the cabinet, nullifying its role and impact.
Qassem stated: “I will say it clearly: The resistance is part of the Taif Accord’s constitution, stipulated in the measures that must be taken in all forms to protect Lebanon. A constitutional matter cannot be put to a vote; it requires consensus and the participation of all components of society to agree on common issues.”
With these words, Sheikh Naim Qassem undermined and overturned the Lebanese constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it state, as Qassem claimed, that “a constitutional matter cannot be discussed by voting.” This was not mere interpretation—it was fabrication.
Attack on Tom Barrack and an “Arab Official”
Qassem didn’t stop at rejection; he attacked U.S. envoy Tom Barrack and hinted at Saudi envoy Prince Faisal bin Farhan, saying: “No one is comfortable because Barrack came to us and threw the first, second, and third papers. Where do you stand? What’s the story? Whenever someone speaks or an Arab official comes and says: ‘Do this… or else…’ what does ‘or else’ mean? No money? (We can live without money). Who are you to buy us with money?”
Qassem: “Tell them to speak to the resistance”
Qassem went so far as to urge the authorities to step aside and let “Hezbollah” take charge, saying: “When someone pressures you, tell them: speak to the resistance, and we’ll decide together what to do.”
Significantly, Sheikh Naim Qassem made his statement before the cabinet session had concluded, indicating that the party’s decision to escalate was already made, regardless of the cabinet’s eventual decision.
How Did the Government Respond?
While Qassem was speaking, the cabinet was still in session, chaired by the president and attended by most ministers except for the finance and labor ministers, who were abroad. After five and a half hours, the meeting ended with the withdrawal of ministers Tamara Zein and Rakan Nasreddine. Prime Minister Salam then announced the decision on weapon exclusivity: “The cabinet decided to continue discussing the U.S. paper at a government session on August 7, and to task the army with developing a plan to confine weapons by the end of this year, to be presented to the cabinet before the 31st of this month.”
What Happened During the Weapons Debate?
Prime Minister Salam, reacting to Qassem’s claim that handing over weapons would mean delivering them to Israel, insisted on proceeding with the debate until a resolution was passed. Hezbollah’s two ministers tried to postpone the discussion, initially asking for a week, a request rejected on the basis that there was no guarantee another session could be held. They then reduced the request to two days, which was also refused. Salam’s insistence was supported by the president and the “Lebanese Forces” ministers.
The Socialist bloc also took a favorable stance.
Sources told Nidaa al-Watan that the U.S. paper will be approved by the cabinet even before the army’s plan is submitted, and once the government endorses the army’s plan, actual implementation on the ground will begin.
After the withdrawal of the two ministers, Minister Fadi Makki remained as the Shiite representative, meaning the decision retained full sectarian legitimacy despite his reservations about the timeline. All ministers otherwise approved the decision to confine weapons and to task the army.
With “the duo” confirming participation in Thursday’s session, sources stressed that the political decision is now clear for the army: it will implement the government’s decisions, and no one can prevent it from asserting authority under this political cover.
Regarding threats to ignite security unrest, the sources emphasized that no political force is prepared to bear that responsibility, and that the army and security forces will maintain stability. Whatever the threats, the Council of Ministers—representing all—remains the responsible authority, and legitimate agencies will fulfill their duties for the entire country.
Escalation from Hezbollah
Tensions rose further when Prime Minister Salam’s government tasked the Lebanese army with preparing a plan to place all weapons under state control before the year’s end—a move Hezbollah saw as a direct attack on what it calls “the weapons of the resistance.” Amal also criticized the step as hasty “free concessions.”
In a harsh statement, Hezbollah described the decision as a “grave sin” that undermines the foundations of national defense against Israeli–American aggression, and as a “clear constitutional violation” that contravenes the ministerial statement committing the government to liberating Lebanese territory through self-reliance, not external demands.
Hezbollah accused the government of “surrendering” to U.S. envoy Tom Barrack’s pressure and said the decision amounted to “giving Israel a chance to tamper with Lebanon’s security and territory.” The party said it would treat the decision as “nonexistent,” while affirming its openness to dialogue—“but only in an atmosphere free of pressure and aggression.”