A new trilateral agreement signed over the weekend by Israel, Lebanon, and the United States aims to restore Lebanese sovereignty in the country's south, but its success depends on Beirut's untested capacity to confront Hezbollah—a task made more difficult by conflicting U.S. commitments that may funnel billions to Iranian proxy groups even as Washington demands their disarmament.
An official source at the U.S. State Department confirmed to Haaretz that the Israel-Lebanon framework is directly linked to the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, which requires the war to end on all fronts and guarantees Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty amid ongoing Israeli strikes and incursions. The deal signed Friday in Washington drew a furious reaction from Hezbollah, suggesting the militant group sees the agreement as a threat to its autonomy in southern Lebanon.
The Sovereignty Question
The trilateral framework requires Lebanon to take full responsibility and exercise governmental sovereignty in the country's south—territory where Hezbollah has operated with near-total autonomy for years. One key provision prevents the transfer of funds to non-state armed groups, a direct challenge to Hezbollah's financial networks. Whether Lebanon's government and army can impose their authority on the Iranian-backed militia remains the central question surrounding implementation.
A previous agreement signed in November 2024—which created even more favorable conditions for Israel—was never fully implemented and eventually collapsed. That failure underscores the gap between diplomatic commitments and the realities of Lebanese politics, where Hezbollah wields significant military and political power.
Contradictory U.S. Commitments
The contrast between the Lebanon deal's restrictions on proxy funding and the U.S.-Iran truce framework complicates the picture. The U.S.-Iran memorandum is set to inject billions of dollars into Iran's proxy groups, creating a fundamental contradiction: Washington is simultaneously demanding that Lebanon disarm Hezbollah while potentially providing Tehran with resources that could flow to the same organization. This tension makes it difficult to predict whether Beirut will manage to disarm Hezbollah or whether the group will simply receive alternative funding streams through Iranian channels.
Implementation Challenges Ahead
Hezbollah's angry response to Friday's agreement signals that the group has no intention of voluntarily ceding control in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government faces the daunting task of confronting a militia that is better armed than the national army and deeply embedded in the country's political system. Without sustained international support—and clarity on whether Iran will continue funding its proxies—Lebanon's capacity to enforce the deal remains uncertain.
Why This Matters:
This agreement tests whether diplomacy can address the fundamental problem driving instability across the region: the presence of heavily armed non-state actors operating beyond governmental control. For Lebanese civilians who have endured years of conflict, economic collapse, and displacement, the promise of restored sovereignty offers hope—but only if implementation succeeds where previous agreements failed. The contradiction between demanding Hezbollah's disarmament while potentially funding Iran's proxy network reveals the complexity of U.S. policy in the region, where competing strategic goals often work at cross-purposes. If Lebanon cannot assert control over its own territory, the cycle of Israeli military operations, Hezbollah retaliation, and civilian suffering will continue indefinitely, with no pathway to lasting peace.