Israel-Lebanon framework explained: Can Hezbollah be disarmed without another war?

Israel and Lebanon signed a United States-backed framework agreement in Washington on June 26, 2026, creating a phased process intended to end hostilities, expand Lebanese state control and eventually remove Israeli forces from occupied areas of southern Lebanon. The agreement links further Israeli withdrawals to the Lebanese Armed Forces dismantling Hezbollah’s military infrastructure and assuming exclusive responsibility for security in transferred territory. Hezbollah was not involved in the negotiations and immediately rejected any nationwide disarmament requirement, with senior Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah warning that attempting to enforce the framework could push Lebanon towards civil war.

The document was signed at the United States Department of State by Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter, Lebanese Ambassador to the United States Nada Hamadeh Moawad and State Department Counselor Daniel Holler. United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the agreement as an initial step rather than a completed peace settlement and acknowledged that implementing it would be difficult.

Washington will establish a Military Coordination Group for Lebanon to oversee implementation and has pledged an immediate $100 million in humanitarian assistance. The United States also intends to provide more than $30 million through existing authorities to strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces, which would be expected to secure areas vacated by Israeli troops and remove unauthorised weapons and military infrastructure.

The agreement represents the most significant diplomatic development between Israel and Lebanon since their latest conflict began, but it does not immediately end the Israeli occupation, disarm Hezbollah or establish formal peace. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israeli forces would remain inside a security zone in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah no longer posed a threat, while Lebanese leaders presented the framework as a route towards complete withdrawal and restored sovereignty.

What did Israel, Lebanon and the United States actually agree to in Washington?

The framework establishes a performance-based process under which Lebanese forces would enter selected areas of southern Lebanon as Israeli troops withdraw. The Lebanese Armed Forces would then be responsible for removing Hezbollah weapons, military positions and other infrastructure before the model could be expanded to additional territory.

The first transfers would take place through two pilot zones. Israeli officials said these areas would allow the Lebanese army to demonstrate that it can maintain security and prevent Hezbollah from returning, while Lebanon views the pilot process as the beginning of a wider Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory.

The agreement does not provide an immediate, unconditional timetable for Israel to leave the entire security zone. Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter said further withdrawals would depend on how effectively the Lebanese army dismantled and disarmed Hezbollah, meaning every subsequent transfer could be tied to an assessment of Lebanese performance.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said the framework was intended to secure Israel’s withdrawal, restore state sovereignty and allow displaced citizens to return. He also said Lebanon would be required to extend state authority through its armed forces across the country, language that directly challenges Hezbollah’s maintenance of an independent military organisation.

The framework is therefore neither a conventional ceasefire document nor a final peace treaty. It creates a sequence of military and territorial steps, but its success depends on actors that were not all represented at the signing table and do not share the same interpretation of what must happen first.

Why has Hezbollah rejected the agreement and warned that enforcement could cause civil war?

Hezbollah maintains that it is not required to surrender its weapons across Lebanon. The organisation argues that earlier agreements and United Nations resolutions apply primarily to the area south of the Litani River, rather than authorising the Lebanese government to dismantle its entire national military structure.

Hassan Fadlallah, a member of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, said Lebanese authorities would be unable to implement the Washington agreement unless they were prepared, with United States support, to enter a civil war. He said Hezbollah would resist measures taken against it and would hold more firmly to its weapons. His statement was a political warning from a Hezbollah official, not evidence that civil war had already begun or become inevitable.

Hezbollah also opposes Lebanon’s direct negotiations with Israel and considers the framework an attempt to undermine parallel United States-Iran diplomacy. The group has longstanding political representation, armed forces and social institutions inside Lebanon, making any national disarmament operation considerably more complex than removing weapons from a narrow border zone.

The Lebanese government now faces a severe internal test. Accepting a framework that requires exclusive state control over weapons strengthens the formal authority of the government, but attempting to impose it without sufficient political agreement could create confrontation between the Lebanese Armed Forces and Hezbollah.

The warning also exposes the principal weakness of the deal. Israel can condition its withdrawal on Hezbollah’s disarmament, but the Lebanese government cannot guarantee that disarmament merely by signing an agreement with Israel and the United States.

Why is Israel refusing to leave southern Lebanon before Hezbollah is disarmed?

Benjamin Netanyahu said the agreement permits Israel to remain in the security zone until Hezbollah has been disarmed and no longer threatens northern Israel. Israel describes its positions inside Lebanon as necessary to prevent Hezbollah fighters, rockets, drones and other military assets from returning to communities close to the border.

Israel’s sequence is based on security verification before withdrawal. Under this approach, Lebanese troops would demonstrate effective control, Hezbollah infrastructure would be removed and Israeli forces would then vacate designated areas. Further withdrawals would depend on the success of earlier pilot zones.

Lebanon’s preferred sequence is different. President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam want Israeli forces to leave Lebanese territory, displaced residents to return and the Lebanese state to establish authority without operating under an indefinite foreign occupation.

This disagreement means both governments can claim that the other side is delaying implementation. Israel can argue that withdrawal is impossible while Hezbollah remains armed, while Lebanon can argue that state institutions cannot fully operate or rebuild communities while Israel occupies and controls the territory.

The framework attempts to overcome that impasse through incremental exchanges. Israel would surrender control of a limited area, Lebanon would deploy its army and remove Hezbollah infrastructure, and the results would determine whether the process advances.

How will the new Military Coordination Group for Lebanon oversee the deal?

The United States will facilitate a new Military Coordination Group for Lebanon, although the complete membership, decision-making rules and verification procedures were not publicly detailed at the signing. Its central task will be coordinating territorial transfers, Lebanese army deployments, Israeli withdrawals and assessments of whether Hezbollah infrastructure has been removed.

A workable monitoring system will need to answer several disputed questions. Officials must determine what qualifies as Hezbollah infrastructure, who conducts inspections, how alleged violations are investigated and whether Israel can re-enter transferred territory if it believes a threat has returned.

The group will also need to prevent isolated incidents from stopping the entire process. Southern Lebanon remains heavily militarised, and a rocket launch, drone movement, weapons discovery or disputed troop position could prompt Israel to delay withdrawal or carry out another strike.

United States assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces is intended to strengthen the institution expected to replace both Israeli control and Hezbollah’s independent presence. Washington said it would provide more than $30 million through existing programmes, while the framework also includes immediate humanitarian assistance worth $100 million in coordination with the United Nations.

Funding alone will not resolve the political challenge. The Lebanese army would need sufficient personnel, intelligence, equipment and domestic legitimacy to operate in communities where Hezbollah has maintained deep military and political influence.

What are the two pilot zones and why will their success determine the wider withdrawal?

The pilot-zone concept allows Israel and Lebanon to test the agreement without immediately resolving every disputed area. Israeli forces would withdraw from selected territory, after which Lebanese soldiers would enter, establish security positions and dismantle Hezbollah’s military presence.

Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel was establishing two such zones and allowing the Lebanese army to begin preparations to assume control. The specific boundaries and implementation dates had not been fully disclosed, limiting independent assessment of how much territory Israel would initially surrender.

For Israel, a successful pilot zone would demonstrate that withdrawal does not create a vacuum that Hezbollah can exploit. For Lebanon, it would establish a precedent showing that negotiations can recover occupied land and enable displaced residents to return.

Failure could reinforce both sides’ deepest fears. A renewed Hezbollah presence could cause Israel to halt further withdrawals or re-enter transferred territory, while an Israeli refusal to leave after Lebanese compliance could destroy confidence in the entire framework.

The pilot zones must therefore deliver observable changes rather than symbolic announcements. Lebanese troops would need to be physically deployed, Israeli forces would need to leave agreed positions and civilians would need credible assurances that returning would not expose them to renewed fighting.

Does the framework immediately create peace between Israel and Lebanon?

The agreement creates a pathway towards peace, but the parties repeatedly described it as a first step. It does not resolve every territorial disagreement, establish normal diplomatic relations or guarantee that Israel and Hezbollah will permanently stop attacking each other.

Yechiel Leiter said the eventual objective was for Israelis and Lebanese citizens to travel between Tel Aviv and Beirut. That ambition demonstrates the agreement’s wider political direction, but it remains far removed from conditions on the ground in southern Lebanon.

Violence continued around the signing. Israel said its forces had killed seven Hezbollah members operating near Israeli-controlled territory, a claim Reuters could not independently confirm. Israeli forces also dropped warning leaflets over Mansouri, telling civilians to stay away from an area Israel considers part of its security zone.

These developments show that the diplomatic framework and military reality are moving at different speeds. Officials were signing a document designed to produce gradual withdrawal while Israeli forces were simultaneously reinforcing restrictions inside occupied territory.

A durable settlement will require more than a reduction in large-scale fighting. It must establish agreed borders, prevent armed groups from launching attacks, restore Lebanese civilian administration and create conditions in which displaced communities can return safely.

Why is Lebanese sovereignty now directly tied to Hezbollah’s national disarmament?

Lebanese leaders presented the agreement as a means of restoring sovereignty because the state currently lacks exclusive control over armed force within its territory. Hezbollah maintains a military organisation separate from the Lebanese Armed Forces and has made independent decisions concerning conflict with Israel.

The framework places the Lebanese government in a position where territorial recovery is linked to ending that parallel military authority. Israel is offering phased withdrawals, but only when Lebanese state institutions demonstrate that Hezbollah can no longer operate militarily in transferred areas.

President Joseph Aoun said Lebanese citizens should return to fully liberated land and rebuilt homes without another partner sharing the state’s sovereignty. His language reflected the government’s effort to assert that decisions involving war, borders and weapons should belong to national institutions.

Hezbollah and its supporters reject the argument that disarmament would automatically strengthen Lebanon. They view the organisation’s weapons as protection against Israel and argue that surrendering them before a full Israeli withdrawal would leave the country exposed.

That dispute is not new, but the Washington framework makes it operational. Every territorial transfer could now become a test of whether the Lebanese government can convert formal sovereignty into actual control.

Could the agreement reduce Iranian influence over Hezbollah and southern Lebanon?

Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter declared during the signing that Iran and Hezbollah were being removed from the path towards peace. His statement reflected Israel’s strategic objective of separating Lebanon from Iranian military influence rather than merely moving Hezbollah farther from the border.

Hezbollah has long received political, financial and military support from Iran. The latest war began after Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel following the United States-Israel attack on Iran on February 28, leading to Israeli air and ground operations across Lebanon.

Lebanon pursued separate negotiations partly because its government did not want Iran negotiating on the country’s behalf. The framework therefore represents an attempt by Lebanese state institutions to establish an independent diplomatic track with Israel through United States mediation.

Iran and Hezbollah are unlikely to view the agreement as a neutral border arrangement. A process that dismantles Hezbollah’s weapons and expands United States-backed Lebanese army control would significantly reduce Tehran’s ability to influence security decisions along Israel’s northern frontier.

Whether that objective can be achieved without a wider confrontation remains uncertain. Hezbollah retains political representation and armed capacity, while Iran may seek to preserve influence through financial, political or security channels even if territorial military positions are removed.

What will determine whether the Israel-Lebanon framework survives its first weeks?

The first test will be whether Israel identifies and leaves the two pilot zones. Announcements without visible troop movements would strengthen Lebanese and Hezbollah claims that the framework allows Israel to retain occupied territory indefinitely.

The second test will be whether the Lebanese Armed Forces can deploy without confronting Hezbollah. A negotiated withdrawal of Hezbollah personnel and weapons would support implementation, while resistance or competing armed deployments could halt the process.

The third test will involve civilian returns. The agreement will have little credibility for displaced Lebanese families unless roads reopen, military warnings end and people can reach homes and agricultural land without facing Israeli restrictions or renewed attacks.

The Military Coordination Group must also develop a trusted method for resolving alleged violations. Without a functioning mechanism, Israel and Hezbollah could return to unilateral retaliation whenever either side reports suspicious activity.

The framework is diplomatically significant because Israel and Lebanon have formally accepted a common process for withdrawal, state control and future peace. Its success, however, depends on whether Hezbollah can be disarmed without internal conflict and whether Israel actually leaves territory when the agreed conditions are met.

What are the key takeaways from the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement?

• Israel, Lebanon and the United States signed a framework in Washington on June 26, 2026, creating a phased process for Israeli withdrawals, Lebanese army deployments and the dismantling of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure.
• Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, Lebanese Ambassador Nada Hamadeh Moawad and United States State Department Counselor Daniel Holler signed the document in the presence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
• The United States will facilitate a Military Coordination Group for Lebanon, provide an immediate $100 million in humanitarian assistance and direct more than $30 million towards strengthening the Lebanese Armed Forces.
• Israel will initially withdraw from two pilot zones, where Lebanese soldiers are expected to establish exclusive state control and prevent Hezbollah weapons, fighters and infrastructure from returning.
• Benjamin Netanyahu said Israeli forces would remain in the wider southern Lebanon security zone until Hezbollah was disarmed and no longer represented a threat to communities in northern Israel.
• Hezbollah was excluded from the negotiations and rejected nationwide disarmament, while lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah warned that Lebanese enforcement backed by the United States could lead to civil war.
• Lebanese leaders described the agreement as a route towards complete Israeli withdrawal, restored territorial integrity, civilian returns and the extension of government authority across all Lebanese territory.
• The agreement is not a final peace treaty, and its survival will depend on visible Israeli withdrawals, peaceful Lebanese army deployments, credible verification and Hezbollah’s response to demands that it surrender its weapons.