The strategy behind the new negotiation framework

The Lebanese political leadership’s decision to continue along the path of direct negotiations with Israel demonstrates both courage and a determination to reclaim sovereign control over the country’s diplomatic decision-making, despite mounting domestic pressure, particularly from Hezbollah. These pressures reached a peak when the group’s Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, threatened to bring down the government through street mobilization.

It is evident that Hezbollah’s weapons arsenal has been the principal obstacle throughout previous rounds of negotiations, as it constitutes an issue that none of the participating parties possess the authority to resolve. To date, the Lebanese state has failed to translate its decisions regarding the exclusive monopoly of arms by legitimate state institutions into tangible implementation measures, reflecting the absence of a clear political will within the governing authorities. The same assessment applies to the leadership of the military establishment.

For its part, Israel, despite nearly three years of military operations against Hezbollah, has been unable to compel the group to abandon its military infrastructure. Although Hezbollah has suffered significant losses during this period, losses that have noticeably affected its capabilities and operational effectiveness, it remains firmly committed to retaining its weapons.

Meanwhile, the United States, the principal sponsor of the negotiations, has yet to place Hezbollah’s arms issue on the agenda of its discussions with Iran, the actor that ultimately holds decisive influence over the future and fate of those weapons.

Against this backdrop, the decision taken during the previous round of talks to divide the negotiations into two separate tracks security and political has been widely viewed as an attempt to bypass the main obstacle that hindered progress in earlier rounds: the issue of Hezbollah’s arms. The purpose of this separation is to allow the political track to advance independently of the complexities and disputes surrounding the weapons file.

Based on the current circumstances, little meaningful progress is expected on the security track in the foreseeable future, owing to the continuing disagreement over the future of Hezbollah’s arsenal and the authority empowered to make decisions regarding it. The outcome of the first session held at the Pentagon on May 29 reflected the limited prospects for any significant breakthrough at this level.

Attention is therefore turning to the next round of political negotiations, scheduled for June 2 and 3, which is expected to provide a clearer indication of the direction the negotiation process may take in the coming phase. Expectations are increasingly focused on the possibility of achieving political progress independent of the unresolved complications that continue to dominate the security track.

Accordingly, any advancement on the political front would represent a significant achievement for Lebanon’s legitimate authorities. It would provide them with a powerful political asset in addressing Lebanese public opinion in general, and the Shiite community in particular, enabling them to present themselves as the party that succeeded in reaching an understanding capable of facilitating the return of southern residents to their villages, launching the reconstruction process, and creating the conditions necessary for lasting stability and peace along the border with Israel.

From this perspective, Hezbollah’s weapons file is likely to be portrayed as the principal remaining obstacle preventing the completion and implementation of any agreement. Removing this obstacle would make it possible to move from the stage of political understandings to that of practical execution

Conversely, if Hezbollah continues to insist on retaining its weapons and rejects any settlement concerning their future, any agreement reached through the political track will remain vulnerable to suspension and stagnation until a solution is found for this issue, which constitutes the most consequential and fundamental point of contention affecting both the negotiations and their eventual outcome.

In conclusion, the adoption of two separate negotiating tracks, combined with the possibility of achieving tangible progress on the political level, could reinforce the perception that the outstanding border and political disputes between Lebanon and Israel are not inherently insoluble and can be addressed through negotiation and mutual understandings.

Should such political progress be accompanied by continued deadlock on the security track, it would suggest that the primary obstacle to a comprehensive settlement lies not in the border or political issues themselves, but rather in the question of Hezbollah’s weapons, the most complex and influential file shaping both the course of negotiations and the future relationship between the two sides.

This assessment must also take into account the argument that Hezbollah’s military arsenal serves as a key instrument of Iranian influence in Lebanon, and that a large segment of Lebanese society advocates its dismantlement and the full implementation of the principle that only the state should possess the legitimate authority to use force. This position is rooted in the belief that the establishment of a stable and fully sovereign state requires ending the duality of security and military decision-making and restoring the state’s exclusive control over matters of war and peace.