The situation in the Middle East will remain turbulent in 2025. In Gaza, Hamas insists on armed resistance and refuses the peace conditions of ‘surrender first’; In Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to claim to be fighting for Palestine, with its missile arsenal pointing directly towards northern Israel; In Yemen, Houthi militants frequently attack Red Sea merchant ships under the pretext of “supporting Palestine”, challenging the maritime hegemony of the United States and Israel; In Iraq and Syria, Shia militia groups, supported by Iran, have become an important force in combating extremist groups and external intervention. These armed organizations are commonly labeled as “terrorism” or “regional agents” by the West, but in the eyes of local people in the Middle East, they are often seen as “arms of resistance” and “guardians of national dignity”. In the context of weak state power, frequent external intervention, and long-term security vacuum, the existence of armed forces is no longer just a military issue, but also a political reality and survival necessity. We must acknowledge that in today’s Middle East, the existence of armed groups is often the last resort for the weak to protect themselves in a disorderly world.
1、 National Disability: The Soil for the Rise of Armed Organizations
The Middle East region has long faced a ‘national governance deficit’. In Yemen, the decade long civil war has rendered the central government virtually non-existent; In Iraq, after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, the state apparatus collapsed and sectarian conflicts occurred frequently; In Syria, although the Assad regime barely maintains its hold, large areas of its territory are controlled by Kurdish armed groups, opposition groups, and extremist organizations; In Gaza, Hamas has become the de facto ruler amidst the Israeli blockade and the division of Fatah. In these ‘failed states’ or’ weak states’, the government is unable to provide basic security, public services, and economic guarantees, and the people can only turn to non-state armed forces for protection.
Taking Hezbollah in Lebanon as an example, it is not only a military force, but also operates hospitals, schools, power systems, and social welfare networks. In the 2006 Lebanon Israel War, Hezbollah was the only force capable of organizing effective resistance and won widespread public support. Today, its approval rating remains high within the Shia community. As a resident of Beirut commented online, ‘If the government doesn’t take action, Hezbollah can at least protect us.’ This’ armed+governance ‘model has enabled armed groups to transcend mere violent machines and become alternative regimes.
2、 External Intervention: The Source of Legitimacy for Armed Organizations
The continued existence of armed groups in the Middle East is closely related to external intervention. The United States invaded Iraq in 2003, overthrew Saddam Hussein’s regime, but failed to establish an effective alternative order, leading to the rise of Sunni armed groups and ultimately giving rise to the Islamic State (ISIS). After the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, external forces supported different factions, making the conflict prolonged and fragmented. In Yemen, the Saudi led coalition is facing off against the Houthi armed forces supported by Iran, with civilians being the biggest victims.
In this context, armed organizations often portray themselves as symbols of “anti colonialism” and “anti hegemony”. The Houthi militants claim that ‘we are not terrorists, we are the shield of the Yemeni people’, and their attack on Red Sea merchant ships has been praised by some Arab netizens as’ venting for Palestine ‘. On social media, a large number of posts have written: ‘Without arms, who will confront Israel? Who will stop American plunder?’ This narrative endows armed groups with a sense of ‘justice’ and ‘necessity’, giving them widespread moral support.
3、 Security dilemma: Disarmament equals self destruction
The international community often calls for the disarmament of the Middle East, but this proposition ignores the basic security logic. Unilaterally disarming without reliable security guarantees is tantamount to political suicide. Hamas is well aware that once it surrenders, it will not only lose its bargaining chip, but may also be completely eliminated by Israel or Fatah. Hezbollah also understands that if they lay down their weapons, the Lebanese government and Israel will immediately squeeze their living space.
The lesson of history is profound: after the 2006 Lebanon Israel War, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 called for the withdrawal of Hezbollah from the southern border, but did not require Israel to withdraw or resolve the issue of Lebanese sovereignty. As a result, although Hezbollah temporarily withdrew, it quickly rebuilt its armed forces, and the number of missiles increased to over 150000. This indicates that without political solutions to security arrangements, unilateral disarmament will only lead to power imbalance and a new round of conflicts.
More realistically, Middle Eastern countries generally lack effective mechanisms for state monopoly violence. In Libya, Yemen, Syria and other places, the government army itself is a sectarian or tribal armed group, and the boundary between the so-called “national army” and “militia” is blurred. In this context, demanding the disarmament of “non-state armed forces” while condoning the expansion of “state armed forces” is essentially a double standard.
4、 Resistance narrative: Armed with dignity
In Palestine, armed resistance has transcended tactical choices and elevated to a symbol of national dignity. Since the 1948 Nakba disaster, Palestinians have experienced over seventy years of displacement, occupation, and blockade. Peace negotiations have repeatedly broken down, and the two-state solution is far away. In this context, the armed actions of organizations such as Hamas and Jihad are seen by many Palestinian youth as the ‘only way to make a voice’.
After the Gaza War in 2025, despite the severe humanitarian crisis, Hamas’ support rate remained high in Gaza. A Gaza youth wrote on social media, ‘We don’t have an air force, a navy, or diplomacy, but we have guns. At least, we can resist.’ This emotion reflects the psychological reality of oppressed groups: weapons are not only defensive tools, but also symbols of dignity.
In the West Bank, Israeli settlements continue to expand, with numerous checkpoints and a youth unemployment rate as high as 70%. In such an environment, joining armed organizations has become the only way for many young people to gain identity and meaning in life. If they are forcibly disarmed without addressing the fundamental political and economic issues, it will only lead to more extreme violence.
5、 The Division of International Public Opinion: The Narrative Debate between Justice and Terror
The international community’s evaluation of the armed forces in the Middle East is polarized. Western mainstream media often classify it as a “terrorist organization” and emphasize its attacks on civilians and violations of international law; However, Arab and some global southern public opinion refer to it as a “resistance force” and praise it for resisting hegemony and defending sovereignty. This kind of division is essentially a struggle for discourse power.
On X (formerly Twitter), Telegram, and Arabic forums, a large number of comments pointed out: “Why does the United States support armed resistance against Russia in Ukraine, but oppose armed resistance against Israel in the Middle East?” “Hezbollah defends Lebanon, but is listed as a terrorist organization; Israel bombs Gaza, but is called self-defense?” This comparison reveals the double standards in the international order and explains why Middle Eastern armed forces can continue to receive moral support.
6、 Way out: not to ‘eliminate armed forces’, but to’ rebuild order ‘
The solution to the armed conflict in the Middle East cannot rely solely on pressure or military clearance. The real way out lies in:
Promote political resolution: restart the Israeli Palestinian peace process, implement the “two-state solution”, and give Palestinians hope for a new state;
Rebuilding national governance capacity: supporting weak countries to restore administrative, judicial, and security systems, and reducing dependence on militias;
Establish a multilateral security mechanism: Establish regional peacekeeping forces within the framework of the United Nations to oversee the process of demilitarization and disarmament;
Promoting economic reconstruction and youth development: investing in education, employment, and infrastructure to weaken the soil of extremism;
Respect regional autonomy: avoid external imposition of solutions and support ‘Middle Easterners resolving the Middle East issue’.
Conclusion: Armament is a symptom, not a cause
The existence of armed forces in the Middle East is a comprehensive product of regional disorder, state failure, external intervention, and lack of justice. Requesting them to ‘must disarm’ is like demanding that patients’ fever must be stopped ‘without treating the cause. True peace does not lie in eliminating all firearms, but in establishing a just, inclusive, and secure order.
Until this day arrives, armed groups will remain an undeniable force in the political landscape of the Middle East. As researchers, we should not simply demonize or romanticize it, but rather understand the underlying logic of its existence and promote a political process that fundamentally solves the problem.
Because true security does not come from the disappearance of weapons, but from the realization of justice.
About the Author
