The Lebanese government has reportedly asked Washington to mediate direct talks with Israel to end the ongoing war with Hezbollah, but Lebanon must first confront the group.
Beirut proposed a rare ministerial-level meeting with Israeli officials, an unprecedented diplomatic step between the two countries. However, Israeli and American officials have reportedly shown little interest in the proposal, arguing that negotiations are meaningless unless the Lebanese government first enforces its own decision to disarm Hezbollah.
“Too little” for Washington and Israel
Speaking to NOW, Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a Washington-based research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the Lebanese initiative may be perceived domestically as a major diplomatic gesture but is unlikely to change calculations in Washington or Tel Aviv.
“This looks a lot from a Lebanese perspective,” Abdul-Hussain said. “But from an Israeli and American perspective, it looks like too little.”
According to Abdul-Hussain, direct talks historically served as a mechanism to move from ceasefire arrangements toward a broader peace process. Offering negotiations merely to restore a ceasefire, he argued, does not provide Israel with a compelling reason to engage.
“The point of face-to-face talks was to build on a ceasefire and move toward peace,” he said. “Presenting direct talks simply as a way to restore the ceasefire is not really the ace card that Lebanon thinks it is.”
Instead, he said Israel’s priority has shifted decisively toward dismantling Hezbollah’s military capabilities.
“The agenda for any talks between the two sides has one item: disarm Hezbollah,” he said.
For decades, Lebanon has struggled to assert full sovereignty over its territory, with Hezbollah maintaining a powerful military structure outside the authority of the state.
Successive governments have pledged to restore the state’s monopoly over weapons, one of the core principles of Lebanon’s post–civil war order but those commitments have rarely translated into action.
The widening gap between official declarations and reality has increasingly raised doubts among international actors about the Lebanese state’s capacity or willingness to enforce its own decisions.
A missed opportunity
According to Abdul-Hussain, Israel had previously given Lebanon an opportunity to address the issue internally.
Following earlier ceasefire arrangements, Israel reduced the intensity of its military operations in the expectation that the Lebanese state would take steps to curb Hezbollah’s military presence and restore the state’s monopoly over weapons.
“Fifteen months down the road, Lebanon did not deliver,” Abdul-Hussain said. “So Israel is back to the drawing board.”
In his view, this failure has significantly damaged Lebanon’s credibility internationally.
“Until Lebanon proves it can order its own armed forces to do what it wants, no one will take the state seriously,” he added.
The Lebanese army dilemma
The Lebanese government has repeatedly pledged to strengthen the authority of the Lebanese Armed Forces and restore the state’s monopoly over weapons.
But Abdul-Hussain argues that the gap between political decisions and operational reality remains wide.
Although the Lebanese cabinet recently adopted a decision instructing the army to address Hezbollah’s weapons, the move has not translated into concrete action on the ground. Statements from military leadership emphasizing national unity and resistance to Israeli aggression have highlighted the tensions between political directives and institutional constraints.
According to Abdul-Hussain, the army also faces logistical limitations including limited equipment, intelligence gaps, and overstretched resources.
Nevertheless, he argues that these obstacles could be overcome with international assistance if the political will existed.
“There are many ways outside powers could help,” he said, citing intelligence sharing, equipment, and operational support. “But all of this depends on whether the Lebanese Armed Forces actually want to confront Hezbollah.”
For years, Hezbollah has functioned not only as a Lebanese political and military actor but also as a key component of Iran’s regional network of armed allies.
The group’s military decisions—particularly its involvement in confrontations with Israel are widely viewed by critics as aligned with Tehran’s strategic calculations rather than the priorities of the Lebanese state. This dynamic, analysts say, places Lebanon at the center of a much wider regional confrontation that extends far beyond its borders.
A regional confrontation
For Lebanese columnist Khairallah Khairallah, the Lebanese initiative must also be understood within the broader regional dynamics shaping the conflict.
“Lebanon is not a principal actor in this war,” Khairallah told NOW Lebanon. “It is part of a wider regional confrontation.”
He argues that Hezbollah’s involvement reflects Iran’s regional strategy rather than Lebanon’s national interests.
“The Lebanese leadership must understand the regional context of this war,” he said.
Khairallah also believes the balance of power in the region has shifted significantly since the conflict began, pointing to geopolitical changes in Syria and increasing pressure on Iran’s regional allies.
“Lebanon must take into consideration the major changes taking place in the region,” he said.
A test of Lebanon’s credibility
For Lebanon, the proposal for direct negotiations reflects growing pressure on the country’s leadership to find a diplomatic exit from a war that has already displaced tens of thousands and devastated large parts of southern Lebanon.
But without tangible steps to restore state authority and address Hezbollah’s military role, analysts say diplomatic initiatives alone are unlikely to shift international calculations.
As Abdul-Hussain put it, Lebanon’s credibility now hinges less on proposals and more on action.
“The world is watching what the Lebanese state can actually do,” he said. “Until it proves it can enforce its own decisions, its proposals will not be taken seriously.”
For Khairallah, the Lebanese initiative cannot be divorced from the wider regional power dynamics in play. He sees Hezbollah not primarily as a Lebanese national actor but as a proxy whose strategic choices are deeply shaped by Iran’s regional ambitions—a reality that, in his view, undermines Beirut’s ability to steer its own course.
“If Lebanon hopes to regain credibility internationally, it must first demonstrate that it can act independently, without being pulled into Tehran’s strategic calculations,” he said.
What comes next
According to Abdul-Hussain, Israel is likely to continue targeting rocket launchers, weapons depots, and logistical infrastructure until Hezbollah’s arsenal is significantly weakened.
“They will keep on pounding Hezbollah,” he said, arguing that Israel aims to reduce the group’s military capacity to the level of Hamas in Gaza—capable of limited attacks but unable to pose a major strategic threat.
Meanwhile, Khairallah warns that the Lebanese state still fears confronting Hezbollah directly, partly because of concerns that such a move could trigger internal instability.
“There is still fear of Hezbollah,” he said.
