Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun met with American diplomat Thomas Barrack in Beirut to discuss a US proposal concerning the disarming of Hezbollah.
Barrack, who serves as the ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy for Syria, described Lebanon’s response as “something spectacular” and expressed his satisfaction, although the specifics of the response remain undisclosed.
This diplomatic visit comes in the context of ongoing Israeli military operations targeting alleged Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, which have resulted in civilian casualties since a ceasefire took effect on November 27, 2024.
Barrack’s visit was primarily to obtain an official response from the Lebanese government to the US proposal presented on June 19 to disarm Hezbollah.
As per the terms of a ceasefire agreement with Israel, Hezbollah was expected to withdraw its fighters from areas south of the Litani River and surrender military installations.
However, diplomatic sources suggest that the ceasefire language is intentionally vague, granting both countries room for interpretation.
The US and Israel interpret the ceasefire as contingent upon Hezbollah’s complete disarmament throughout Lebanon.
Following the meeting, Barrack hinted that Washington’s support for Lebanon will depend on the Lebanese government’s alignment with the changes occurring in the region, although he did not clarify what these changes entail.
Over the last two years, Israel has intensified its military operations in Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, backed by US support, and these moves have often been publicized as victories against Iran and its allied forces.
The Lebanese government’s official response to the US demand has not been made public yet, but sources indicate that it likely included calls for Israel to withdraw from all occupied Lebanese territories, including specific areas occupied during the ceasefire and those held since the 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
Additionally, Lebanon reportedly urged the US to pressure Israel to adhere to the ceasefire, return Lebanese prisoners, and comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which includes calls for Hezbollah’s withdrawal from the south and necessary financial and economic reforms.
Barrack mentioned he received a detailed seven-page reply from President Aoun’s team and had yet to analyze its contents, but he conveyed his approval of the response.
His remarks implied that Lebanon must meet certain expectations to receive US support, drawing a comparison to Syria’s willingness to pursue a peace agreement with Israel.
“If you don’t want change, it’s no problem,” he said, before noting that the rest of the region was accelerating towards some undefined objective.
Barrack did not specify whether US support would manifest in reconstruction financing or in efforts to contain Israeli military actions, which have persisted in southern Lebanon and even extended to Beirut.
The calls for Hezbollah to disarm stem from both internal and external pressures.
Externally, the US and Israel have been the most vocal in demanding Hezbollah’s disarmament.
Prior to recent conflicts, Israel considered Hezbollah a significant military threat, while several Gulf states oppose the group’s influence, supported by Iran, across Lebanon and the broader Levant.
Internally, prominent Lebanese officials and political leaders echo the calls for Hezbollah’s disarmament, advocating for the consolidation of military power and decision-making regarding war and peace within the Lebanese army and state rather than a militia.
Historically, Hezbollah has played a dominant role in Lebanon’s political and military landscape since the civil war’s end in 1990 and relies heavily on support from the Shia community, whose elected representatives are often affiliated with Hezbollah or its allies.
Critics of Hezbollah argue that the organization has alienated Lebanon from fostering positive relationships with other regional and international entities, transforming from an outsider in the political landscape to a protector of a corrupt political system.
The Lebanese government’s compliance with the US demand is influenced by the US being perceived as the only power capable of limiting Israeli military actions that threaten the new administration’s reform efforts.
Without the support that the Lebanese people expect from their government post-ceasefire, the nation’s current leadership finds itself under considerable strain.
Throughout Lebanon’s history, Hezbollah has often filled gaps left by the state while undermining government initiatives.
The urgency for compliance is compounded by Lebanon’s dire need for foreign investment and aid for recovery, which the US may tie to Hezbollah disarming.
Hezbollah seems to recognize this reality and has expressed some willingness to cooperate, aware that many of its constituents require reconstruction of homes and villages.
However, several significant obstacles hinder the possibility of Hezbollah disarming.
One major impediment relates to the continued Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon and the persistent military action against its territory.
Hezbollah leaders and supporters strongly oppose disarming under these circumstances, feeling that nobody should be expected to lay down weapons while facing ongoing aggression.
Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem articulated this sentiment by stating that the group cannot relinquish its arms as long as there is a tangible Israeli threat to Lebanon.
The historical context extends back to the Israeli invasions in 1978 and 1982, the latter resulting in a prolonged occupation until Hezbollah drove Israeli forces out in 2000, and ongoing fears of renewed invasion play heavily into their stance.
Concerns also persist regarding tensions along the Lebanon-Syria border, where previous clashes have raised alarms about potential conflict escalation.
Given this backdrop, the question of Israel’s future actions remains crucial.
How Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacts to US pressures to halt military actions against Lebanon and fully implement ceasefire agreements remains uncertain.
It is unclear if Barrack’s diplomatic efforts in Beirut will influence discussions between President Trump and Netanyahu in Washington, D.C.
Nevertheless, Lebanon hopes for Israeli restraint, support to uphold the ceasefire, and aid to facilitate the government’s fragile initiative to regulate Hezbollah’s armament while striving to incorporate the Shia community into a larger nation-building effort.
image source from：aljazeera
