There will be no peace, no sovereignty, and no reconstruction for postwar Lebanon absent the confiscation of Hezbollah weapons.
At the Sharm El-Sheikh signing ceremony, US President Donald Trump touted the Gaza ceasefire as a “new beginning for an entire beautiful Middle East” and predicted the imminent expansion of the Abraham Accords. The Israel-Hamas truce isn’t going well, but just hours after Sharm, Lebanese president Joseph Aoun announced that he was open to negotiations with Israel, raising hopes that Beirut might be next to board the peace train. Regrettably, the optimism is premature. A resumption of war with Hezbollah is more likely.
A Fragile Ceasefire in Lebanon Is Tested
Israel and Lebanon signed onto their own ceasefire to end the Hezbollah-Israel war in November 2024. Like Gaza, that agreement also isn’t faring particularly well. In the deal, Beirut committed to disarm Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia, throughout the state. Today, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) is collecting weapons and dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure in the south of the country, but Beirut is balking about undertaking its obligations in the north.
Since the ceasefire began, Israel has been targeting Hezbollah operatives and arms caches, striking Lebanon on an almost daily basis. Absent progress on disarmament, Israel will resume its campaign against Hezbollah in full.
Israel’s devastating military strikes in September-October 2024 severely degraded the militia. Hezbollah subsequently acquiesced to the ceasefire and its neutering in the south. Yet the group rejects its disarmament north of the Litani River. In the face of this opposition, the process stalled. Washington’s special envoy, Tom Barrack, traveled to Lebanon in August to press Beirut to move forward. Under pressure, in early September, the LAF delivered a secret plan for Hezbollah disarmament to the cabinet. The LAF reportedly would complete the south by the new year and then shift to the north. It’s now becoming apparent, however, that the LAF and the Government of Lebanon aren’t planning on disarmament.
For the LAF and some in government, stripping Hezbollah of its arms is just too risky. In August, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem threatened a resumption of Lebanon’s 15-year civil war if the government persisted in its efforts to confiscate Hezbollah’s weapons. Just days earlier, in a deadly reminder of what the militia is capable of, six LAF soldiers were killed while clearing a Hezbollah arms depot near the southern Lebanese city of Tyre, an explosion now deemed to have been a boobytrap.
Aoun Finds a New Approach
Fearing civil war, Aoun pivoted to a new approach. Rather than disarming Hezbollah, Aoun started talking about “containing” the group’s weapons north of the Litani. As Aoun said when he initially floated the idea of negotiations, “weapons are not the main issue; it is the intention to use them that matters.” Given Hezbollah’s predilection for using these weapons against Israel, and Aoun’s heady inaugural address pledge to work to “ensure the state’s right to hold a monopoly on weapons,” the backtracking is profoundly disappointing.
Instead, Aoun is trying to leverage negotiations to end Israel’s continuous military strikes on Hezbollah targets and a complete withdrawal from Lebanese territory. Israel and Lebanon have long engaged in indirect talks, with both United Nations and US mediation. Discussions succeeded in defining maritime boundaries and undoubtedly would have been helpful in resolving disputed land borders. Direct talks hold the potential of laying the foundations for more normal—if not peaceful—contacts between the professional militaries of both states.
While direct negotiations with Beirut are an appealing prospect for Jerusalem, in the post-October 7 world, Israel no longer tolerates armed Iranian proxies on its borders. Not surprisingly, a week after the offer was proffered, Israel rejected the overture. A day later, Israel again targeted Hezbollah weapons and personnel in Lebanon.
Lebanon’s Future
Nearly a year since the signing of the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire, Beirut continues to equivocate about its obligations vis-à-vis Hezbollah. To be sure, there are good reasons for doing so, not the least of which are Hezbollah’s prodigious track record of murdering its domestic adversaries and concerns about civil war. Yet there will be no peace, no sovereignty, and no reconstruction for postwar Lebanon absent the confiscation of Hezbollah weapons.
Aoun is not alone in his reticence to challenge Hezbollah. Fearing destabilizing violence, some Lebanese are calling for a more gradual approach to encourage the organization to morph into merely a political party. Yet there is little indication that’s of interest to Hezbollah. The militia is currently at its weakest point, but left intact, it will all but certainly reconstitute. In any event, it’s far from certain that the militia would attack its fellow countrymen in the LAF if it moved to confiscate the arms. Fratricide would only further erode Hezbollah’s diminished standing.
Tom Barrack recently wrote, “If Beirut fails to act, Hezbollah … will inevitably face major confrontation with Israel.” Sadly, despite the hopes ushered in by a promising new Lebanese government and a diminished Hezbollah, Barrack is right. Israel is prepared to negotiate and make concessions to Lebanon on a broad range of issues. Jerusalem gave away the store on the 2022 Maritime Agreement, acceding to nearly all of Beirut’s demands. When it comes to Hezbollah disarmament, however, there will be no compromise.
David Schenker, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, served as assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, 2019-21.
The National Interest