- 11:50
Lebanon’s call for direct negotiations with Israel and its pledge to disarm Hezbollah are being framed in Beirut as historic. But it may instead be a delayed response, too late to stop the war, too weak to change its course, and potentially giving Hezbollah room to maneuver.
On Monday, President Joseph Aoun urged an immediate ceasefire and direct talks with Israel under international sponsorship, while issuing the sharpest criticism of Hezbollah ever delivered by a Lebanese head of state.
“Whoever fired the rockets wished to precipitate the collapse of the Lebanese state,” the president warned, accusing Hezbollah of sacrificing villages and civilians to serve “the Iranian regime’s calculations.”
Lebanese Forces’ executive council member Joseph Gebeily said Israel has yet to make a clear response to Lebanon’s entreaties for talks. He told This is Beirut that the central issue is whether Israel is prepared to negotiate now or intends to continue its military campaign to dismantle Hezbollah before talks begin.
After years of accommodating Hezbollah, Lebanon is appealing to Washington to broker talks as Israel ramps up its military campaign against the group. Rather than showing strategic clarity, Beirut’s move reinforces the perception that Lebanon acts only when cornered and seeks to limit damage, not pursue peace.
Diplomacy Born of Desperation
Lebanon’s request for U.S.-mediated talks reflects desperation. After Hezbollah’s rocket fire into Israel on March 2, 2026, Israel responded forcefully, displacing over 700,000 people while raising the threat of a prolonged ground operation.
Hezbollah’s unilateral military move once again dragged Lebanon into war, while the Lebanese state—devoid of leverage—was left to manage the consequences. With its sovereignty undermined, diplomacy has become Beirut’s last resort to halt a war being fought on terms set by others.
However, this diplomatic logic carries little weight in Washington, where skepticism toward the Lebanese state runs deep. U.S. officials have long warned Lebanese leaders that failure to confront Hezbollah would have consequences.
Former Deputy Special Envoy Morgan Ortagus has been particularly blunt about the matter. Speaking at Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics on March 10, she described a familiar pattern of half-measures and performative compliance. Lebanese leaders, she argued, were “very good at words” but consistently failed to translate declarations into action.
As a result, Hezbollah has rebuilt its arsenal, even south of the Litani, where the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) announced on January 8 that it had completed operations to disarm the group, plunging the country into another war that “nobody in Lebanon wanted,” Ortagus said.
From this vantage point, Beirut’s call for talks risks appearing as an effort to freeze the battlefield before Hezbollah suffers irreversible losses.
Missing Credibility
The “key missing ingredient” in Lebanon’s peace initiative is credibility, Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute, told This is Beirut. Washington, he said, wants “clear yardsticks of success, clear timetables of progress” before endorsing a diplomatic initiative that risks reproducing the failed disarmament process.
“No one is going to accept a process that produces a replay of the ‘mechanism’ process from before this conflict,” Satloff warned, pointing to doubts about the LAF’s will and ability to carry out meaningful disarmament.
On March 7, LAF commander Rodolphe Haykal said the army would follow the cabinet’s directives to disarm Hezbollah and ban its military activities “in accordance with the complex circumstances” to preserve unity. The statement drew widespread criticism for undermining the cabinet’s order, issued just hours after Hezbollah launched its war on Israel, to act immediately.
As the war has intensified, Hezbollah has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks along the border, including rocket barrages on Israel. The strikes have deepened skepticism toward the LAF, which had said it disarmed the border area.
Against that backdrop, Lebanon’s sudden embrace of direct talks looks less like a strategic move than a plea for rescue.
Lifeline for Hezbollah
Ironically, the most dangerous consequence of Lebanon’s initiative may be its unintended benefit to Hezbollah. By shifting the focus toward ceasefires and negotiations before Hezbollah has been decisively neutralized, Beirut risks granting the group a political lifeline at a moment when it is under unprecedented military pressure.
An anonymous source familiar with U.S.-Lebanese discussions told This Is Beirut that Israel “will not stop until the mission is accomplished.” From Israel’s perspective, Hezbollah’s demilitarization is a prerequisite, and any pause that allows the group to regroup is unacceptable.
Washington’s priorities align closely with Israel’s objectives. The U.S. sees Hezbollah as the primary driver of the conflicts. “[Lebanese leaders] ignored earlier warnings and did too little, too late to contain Hezbollah’s military infrastructure,” a policy insider told This is Beirut.
In this framework, diplomacy in the war would not replace Lebanon’s disarmament of Hezbollah but serve as a reward for it. History underscores the risks of diplomatic efforts without a lasting solution. Hezbollah has repeatedly exploited ceasefires, with Ortagus saying the group moves to rebuild its capacities whenever pressure eases.
Domestic Shifts, Foreign Doubts
Public debate on Hezbollah in Lebanon has shifted. Aoun’s harsh criticisms mark a clear break from his previous equivocation toward the group. In the Shia community, where frustration with Hezbollah has grown, discourse is also changing, and disarmament—once taboo—is now openly debated.
Former U.S. Ambassador David Hale welcomed Aoun’s statement as important and overdue, but cautioned against unrealistic expectations. Hale noted that ceasefires can be valuable, but they are not enduring. Only genuine state‑to‑state peace, he said, can prevent future wars, and breakthroughs are unlikely while the broader regional conflict with Iran continues.
This assessment exposes the central flaw in Lebanon’s approach, where diplomacy is treated as an offramp from the conflict rather than a path toward real change. Without first demonstrating irreversible steps to monopolize the use of force, Beirut is asking Washington and Jerusalem to accept on faith what history warns against.
Lebanon’s call for direct talks with Israel may reflect a long-overdue acknowledgment that Hezbollah has undermined the country’s sovereignty, but it does not constitute a strategy. After years of inaction against Hezbollah, the move risks being seen as an attempt to protect the party rather than confront it.
The opportunity for peace may be real. As Satloff argues, Lebanon and Israel have almost no territorial disputes, share close ties with the United States, and could both gain significantly from normalization. But peace requires the right timing, leverage, and credibility from Beirut, and on all three counts, Lebanon’s initiative falls short.
Comments