Lebanon After the Third Round of Negotiations: A Declaration of Intentions and Contradictory Paths

The Lebanese-Israeli negotiations have entered, after the third round, an entirely different phase from anything Lebanon has experienced since the April 1996 Understanding and the arrangements that followed the July 2006 war. The issue is no longer confined to localized security arrangements or the management of limited confrontations along the southern border. Instead, it has become part of a broader political-security project led by the United States and Israel aimed at reshaping Lebanon’s entire strategic environment, centered on one primary objective: dismantling the military structure of Hezbollah and redefining the role of the Lebanese state, the Lebanese Army, and Lebanon’s relationship with Israel within a new regional framework.

The negotiations launched in Washington were not built on the traditional premise of first ending the war and then moving toward a settlement. Instead, the entire sequence was reversed. The United States and Israel view the continuation of military pressure as a necessary negotiating instrument to push Lebanon toward gradual concessions on issues related to sovereignty, weapons, and security arrangements. For this reason, the extension of the ceasefire appeared less as a step toward ending the war and more as a mechanism to keep negotiations alive and prevent a comprehensive explosion. In contrast, Lebanon attempted to secure guarantees related to a ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal, the cessation of assassinations, and preventing the expansion of operations toward Beirut and the southern suburbs. However, the Israeli side refused to offer decisive commitments before entering a practical process aimed at disarming the party.

From Conflict Management to the Reengineering of Lebanon

The nature of the discussions held in Washington reveals that Israel did not enter the negotiations seeking a limited security understanding. Rather, it sought to establish a long-term framework capable of reshaping the entire relationship with Lebanon. As a result, the agenda extended beyond the south and border issues to include the future of the Lebanese Army, reconstruction mechanisms, the return of displaced populations, forms of security coordination, and even the possibility of eventually moving toward a comprehensive peace agreement.

The draft circulated under the title “Declaration of Intentions” clearly reflects this transformation. It speaks of ending the conflict, establishing permanent security arrangements, granting the Lebanese state a monopoly over arms, developing the Lebanese Army under American sponsorship, and ending any military role for non-state actors, alongside large-scale reconstruction projects and international investments. In practice, Lebanon’s economic future and the reconstruction of the state are being linked directly to progress in dismantling the military capabilities of Hezbollah.

In this context, the discussion is no longer limited to the area south of the Litani River. It now concerns the restructuring of Lebanon’s entire security sphere, from the southern border to the country’s interior. Moreover, the American-Israeli approach no longer treats the issue of weapons as a political matter open to internal negotiation, but rather as an executive program involving timelines, field phases, and international monitoring mechanisms.

The Security Track: An Operations Room Beyond the “Mechanism”

One of the most significant developments revealed by the negotiations is the shift from the indirect “Mechanism Committee” model to a framework of direct security coordination under American sponsorship. The meeting scheduled at the Pentagon on May 29 is not viewed merely as a technical military gathering, but rather as the beginning of a joint operations room tasked with managing the southern front and overseeing the dismantling of the party’s military infrastructure.

The Israelis entered the negotiations carrying detailed maps of Hezbollah’s structure, target banks, and operational plans for the gradual and regional withdrawal of weapons, alongside a clear vision regarding the role of the Lebanese Army in this process. Meanwhile, the United States seeks to act as a “conductor” between both sides, ensuring the implementation of these plans without triggering a total collapse of Lebanon’s internal situation.

This transformation carries dangerous implications for Lebanon’s internal landscape. The Lebanese military institution now finds itself under American and Israeli pressure to assume a role that goes beyond traditional deployment duties and extends into participating in the restructuring of Lebanon’s internal balance. This explains the emerging discussion regarding the formation of elite units within the Lebanese Army, trained and equipped by the United States to serve as the executive arm of the disarmament process.

However, this proposal collides with deeply complex structural obstacles. The Lebanese Army understands that any direct involvement in confrontation with Hezbollah could generate dangerous internal divisions threatening the cohesion of the institution itself, particularly given the party’s continued popular base and extensive political and security presence within the state and society.

Israel: Negotiating Under Fire

The central paradox of this process is that Israel continues negotiating while simultaneously maintaining military operations. Tel Aviv sees no contradiction between war and negotiations; rather, it considers sustained field pressure the only effective means of imposing its conditions. Consequently, Israel rejected a comprehensive halt to military operations and insisted on preserving its right to conduct strikes, assassinations, and attacks inside Lebanese territory under the pretext of preventing the party from rebuilding its military capabilities.

The Israeli strategy is based on a dual equation: continuing military operations to weaken and exhaust the party while simultaneously pushing the Lebanese state toward long-term security arrangements. This explains Israel’s insistence on linking any withdrawal from the south to tangible progress in the issue of disarmament.

Israel also does not appear convinced that the Lebanese arena can be fully separated from the broader regional confrontation with Iran. For this reason, it seeks to transform Lebanon into a model arena for redrawing the region’s new rules of engagement in ways that reduce Iranian influence and weaken its direct military instruments.

Washington and the Attempt to Produce a “New Lebanon”

The current American approach goes beyond merely containing the Lebanese crisis; it aims to reconstruct the Lebanese state within a new security equation. The U.S. administration believes that the recent war has opened a rare window for reshaping Lebanon’s internal balances, taking advantage of economic pressure, domestic collapse, and the blows suffered by Hezbollah.

Washington is therefore linking together three parallel tracks:
• rebuilding the Lebanese Army and expanding its security role;
• launching a direct political and negotiating process with Israel;
• integrating Lebanon into an economic support and reconstruction framework conditional on security and political reforms.

The United States also appears to be developing a comprehensive document that includes timelines for disarmament, monitoring mechanisms using satellites and drones, periodic follow-up reports, and the possibility of imposing sanctions on parties obstructing implementation. At the same time, discussions are underway regarding a new security arrangement for the post-United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon era, amid American-Israeli efforts to terminate the current international force by the end of 2026 and replace it either with a multinational force or alternative security arrangements suited to the coming phase.

The Lebanese Dilemma: Between Political Realism and Internal Explosion

In light of this landscape, the Lebanese state appears trapped between contradictory imperatives. On one hand, there is an urgent need to stop the war, prevent total collapse, restore a minimum level of stability, and open the door for reconstruction. On the other hand, full engagement in the American-Israeli project carries enormous internal risks that could begin with an explosion in the relationship between the state and Hezbollah and potentially extend to destabilizing Lebanon’s entire political and security structure.

For this reason, the Lebanese state is attempting to adopt a “step-for-step” approach: gradual Israeli withdrawal in exchange for expanded army deployment and phased security control, while avoiding any rapid or direct confrontation with the party. Yet this approach does not appear sufficient to convince Washington and Tel Aviv, both of which seek clearer commitments and a precise timetable for the disarmament process.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah understands that what is taking place extends beyond the south and the issue of weapons to target its entire position within both the Lebanese and regional equations. Therefore, the party is unlikely to view these negotiations as a limited technical or security track, but rather as part of a strategic attempt to eliminate its regional role and reconstruct Lebanon within a new political and security environment.

A Long Process Without Guarantees

The process launched in Washington does not appear close to producing a rapid final settlement. Rather, it resembles a long-term effort to reshape the rules of the game in Lebanon and the wider region. The United States is attempting to manage gradual negotiations under the shadow of war, while Israel seeks to exploit its military superiority to impose new strategic realities, and the Lebanese state struggles simultaneously to avoid both collapse and internal explosion.

Yet the core dilemma remains that one of the principal actors directly concerned with these arrangements — namely Hezbollah — is absent from the negotiating table, despite being the most influential actor on the ground. This leaves any future understandings perpetually vulnerable to instability, as long as the real balance between war and politics continues to be determined more on the battlefield than inside negotiating rooms.