Amid an expanding regional war, one development—understandably —went nearly unnoticed. After Hezbollah attacked Israel and drew massive retaliation on the country, Lebanon’s parliamentary speaker, Nabih Berri, endorsed a cabinet decision to outlaw Hezbollah’s weapons.
This is significant. Hezbollah, of course, is an armed group whose power ultimately rests on violence. But despite this, the group has largely relied on its political assets for cover in resisting pressure to disarm from the Lebanese state and the international community.
Amid an expanding regional war, one development—understandably —went nearly unnoticed. After Hezbollah attacked Israel and drew massive retaliation on the country, Lebanon’s parliamentary speaker, Nabih Berri, endorsed a cabinet decision to outlaw Hezbollah’s weapons.
This is significant. Hezbollah, of course, is an armed group whose power ultimately rests on violence. But despite this, the group has largely relied on its political assets for cover in resisting pressure to disarm from the Lebanese state and the international community.
With Berri’s latest turn, such cover might weaken, isolating Hezbollah at the worst possible time. This might embolden enemies seeking to dissolve its militia, most notably the Lebanese prime minister and president. Indeed, the Lebanese military has already reportedly begun an unprecedented campaign to arrest Hezbollah members after the government decision to ban its arms. This progress is fragile, but meaningful.
Berri, a lawyer by training, is Lebanon’s longest-serving official. He has been speaker of parliament for 34 years and shows no sign of stopping despite being 88 years old. Although he is the ultimate establishment politician, Berri has a colorful past as a member and later commander of the Amal militia, a militant Shiite group that focused on fighting Israel in addition to empowering Lebanese Shiites.
Unlike the Islamic Republic of Iran’s brand of Shiite radicalism, Berri’s Shiism was secular in ideology despite being sectarian in identity. Indeed, Berri and his men fought a series of battles against Hezbollah for control of Beirut during the Lebanese civil war. Despite Amal’s military losses, Berri’s formidable position in Lebanese politics was then cemented during the Syrian occupation, which favored Amal. With Syria’s backing, Berri secured the speakership of the parliament, and constructed a vast network of patronage and corruption. As a result, Berri became an indelible element of Lebanese public life and a tremendously wealthy man.
In time, Hezbollah came to overshadow Amal. The passing of Hafez al-Assad, followed by the ascension of his more pro-Hezbollah son Bashar as well as the unremitting support of Iran, helped consolidate this shift. Hezbollah built a vast network devoted to public service provision and also took credit for ending the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in 2000 (although Amal played a significant role in the fighting). But as Hezbollah capitalized on these real and proclaimed achievements to dominate Lebanese Shiite politics, Amal, drawing on historical legitimacy and a network of corrupt ties, retained a sizable base.
Berri, ever the pragmatist, accepted Hezbollah’s hegemonic position and focused on making money and leveraging his speakership to become a kingmaker, ultimately emerging as a swing voter of sorts. Yet he was hardly impartial or even-handed. As part of his accommodation to Hezbollah’s rise, he was willing to block legislation and elections when it suited Hezbollah. In doing so, he formed a Shiite bloc with the party. Through his control of the legislative agenda, he helped protect Hezbollah on key issues—for example, resisting attempts to disarm the group and remove its arsenal.
There are countless Lebanese jokes about Berri’s longevity and personal corruption. Both are well-earned. Of late, Berri has often been portrayed as a pro-Hezbollah crook. But this is not the full picture. Berri recognized that the West needed Shiite interlocutors in Lebanon, and he emerged as the leading Shiite counterpart for diplomats seeking indirect access to Hezbollah or simply looking for insight into the Shiite community.
Which brings us to his decision on Hezbollah’s arms. Given his advanced age, Berri is likely concerned with his political legacy. That would include his standing among the Shiite community and his party’s position in Lebanon’s future. Distancing himself from Hezbollah’s reckless operations—and going so far as to support outlawing its arms—may show that Berri believes Hezbollah is alienating Lebanese Shiites by starting unnecessary wars that disproportionately punish them.
Israel’s operations in Lebanon are still escalating. The Israeli military is ordering hundreds of thousands of mostly Shiite Lebanese to evacuate their homes in Beirut, presumably ahead of punishing airstrikes. There is much speculation that Hezbollah is hemorrhaging support among Lebanese Shiites. Berri is in a far better position to know this than the rest of us.
We do not know how far this shift might go. Shiite sentiment is difficult to predict in the middle of chaos and dramatic change. There are reports that Israel recently targeted Amal members, whether because they were actively involved in fighting or merely because of Berri’s alignment with Hezbollah. This illustrates the fiendish complexity of Berri’s position. Ever the political survivor, he may well backtrack. This is all the more likely if expanding Israeli operations in southern Lebanon have the effect of consolidating Shiite support for Hezbollah. After all, Berri’s latest maneuvers probably don’t reflect a sincere change in his worldview. He may even have coordinated his statements with Hezbollah. Ultimately, Berri’s calculus and prospects have nothing to do with his sincerity and more to do with Israel’s aggression against Lebanon’s Shiite population.
But if Berri doesn’t walk back his pivot on Hezbollah, it could seriously undermine the party’s position in Lebanon’s political institutions. The group has long relied on exploiting Berri’s lawmakers and ministers to shield its weapons and interests from hostile policies. Losing Berri would leave Hezbollah exposed politically and militarily at the worst possible time, especially given the Lebanese Armed Forces’ pledge to disarm the group. Since Hezbollah has always had one foot in politics but the other in “resistance,” Berri has long functioned as a sort of Hezbollah ambassador to the Lebanese state, and losing that would further isolate them.
It appears likely that Israel’s ground war will take a high toll on Hezbollah. The group will, of course, frame any significant Israeli military casualties as a victory. But that won’t necessarily provide any comfort to Lebanese citizens facing open-ended suffering.
What does this mean for Berri, Hezbollah, and Lebanon’s Shiite community?
Lebanese history is full of the rapid disintegration of political communities. Internecine fighting and the Syrian occupation destroyed Christian political elites in the country in the late 1980s. More recently, Hezbollah itself overran Sunni areas of Beirut in 2008, eviscerating the community’s political leadership and throwing it into a long depression. Despite his love of money, Berri has always been a sincere if imperfect champion of Shiite empowerment, and Shiite politics has not produced alternatives to Hezbollah and Amal. If he dies without a legacy just as Hezbollah is being destroyed, his community would be similarly bereft, leaving totally open the crucial question of who leads Lebanon’s Shiites.
Yet after decades of playing second fiddle to Hezbollah, Berri may now have a chance to secure his legacy, shape Shiite politics, and ensure Amal’s control of the leadership of parliament, this time at Hezbollah’s expense rather than to its benefit. Berri spent decades turning Amal from an actual political party into his personalistic fiefdom. While this gave him ironclad control over the movement, it complicates succession given the lack of serious institutional processes within the party. It is unclear whether his choice of successor will be respected after his passing, or whether other political factions would accept another Amal speaker of parliament at all.
All this gives the normally conservative Berri a rather narrow window to influence Lebanon’s politics; its relations with the West; and maybe Hezbollah’s fate as well. The result may well be a more vulnerable Hezbollah, caught between a hostile foreign army and the Lebanese factions and institutions that it has ignored, humiliated, or antagonized for too long.
