- 09:55
As Lebanon and Israel prepare to deepen diplomatic contact amid a 10-day truce, attention is shifting to what comes next, including the fate of Hezbollah’s weapons and whether the ceasefire marks a temporary pause or a strategic shift.
During the war, both President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam navigated a perilous political landscape in line with Lebanon’s national interests, adopting positions that reasserted the role of the state.
One of the most significant steps was the government’s March 2 decision banning Hezbollah’s military activity. A clear assertion of sovereignty, it stripped Hezbollah’s weapons of legal cover and marked a step toward restoring the state’s monopoly over decisions of war and peace.
At the same time, Lebanon’s diplomatic posture has shifted, with the state reclaiming its role in managing foreign relations after decades of marginalization. The boldest move, however, was Aoun’s initiative to enter into direct negotiations with Israel in pursuit of a comprehensive settlement to end the longstanding state of hostility between the two countries.
If sustained, these negotiations could mark a historic turning point not only in Lebanese–Israeli relations but also in Lebanon’s regional position, long an open arena for competing external agendas.
Following the truce announcement, Aoun delivered an exemplary speech to the Lebanese people underscoring his commitment to restoring the state’s sovereign decision-making and independence. The speech also signaled a clear rejection of Hezbollah’s path, which had drawn Lebanon into destructive conflicts in service of Iranian interests.
Most notably, Aoun pledged to go anywhere to protect Lebanon, recover occupied territory, and ensure the return of the displaced. His statement carried added weight in light of U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks about possibly bringing Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu together at the White House. Aoun’s line could be interpreted as a signal of his willingness to take such a historically significant step in pursuit of peace for Lebanon.
Yet a critical and potentially dangerous factor remains. The cessation of hostilities has not fundamentally changed conditions on the ground, especially regarding Hezbollah’s weapons and its military and security infrastructure, which remain largely intact.
Hezbollah’s weapons are the primary obstacle to advancing Lebanese-Israeli negotiations from symbolic gestures toward tangible outcomes. Any meaningful progress toward a comprehensive peace agreement must first resolve the issue of arms outside state authority.
In his address, Aoun outlined a broad political framework aimed at safeguarding Lebanon, while the government has already taken steps to restore state sovereignty. The central challenge, however, lies in implementation, specifically in the hands of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and its commander, General Rodolphe Haykal.
Since the truce was declared, the military leadership has been expected to take clear executive steps to implement government decisions, the presidential oath, and U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1680, and 1701. These steps are essential to advancing Aoun’s path, which requires decisive action on weapons outside state control across all Lebanese territory.
It has become increasingly clear that the LAF’s approach to disarming Hezbollah over the past fifteen months has lacked seriousness. Continuing along the same path is neither acceptable nor without risk.
Haykal now bears a historic responsibility to help prevent a renewed conflict by addressing the issue of these arms with urgency and resolve. Expectations extend beyond Lebanon to the international community, which expects the LAF to act swiftly and effectively in turning decisions into action.
Comments