US-Backed Pentagon Talks: Lebanon’s Step-by-Step vs. Israel’s Pilot Zone – Can Lebanon Regain Sovereignty Before Hezbollah Rearms?
As U.S.-brokered talks between Lebanese and Israeli military delegations loom in the Pentagon, Washington’s focus has shifted from how to weaken Hezbollah to whether Lebanon’s fractured state can seize this diplomatic opening to reclaim sovereignty—or risk ceding ground to the group once again.
Sources within the U.S. National Security Council emphasize that Lebanon’s crisis no longer hinges solely on ceasefire negotiations but on the state’s ability to reclaim authority from a hybrid system co-constructed by Hezbollah. The upcoming discussions, expected to explore proposals like Israel’s proposed “Pilot Zone” or Lebanon’s “step-for-step” strategy, place the Lebanese Armed Forces at the center of the negotiations.
What Happened: A Diplomatic Gamble in the Pentagon
With talks set to begin, Lebanese General George Rizkallah will lead the military delegation, while diplomats may join later sessions. A pre-talks coordination meeting between U.S. Officials and the Lebanese military was also planned to assess the army’s capacity to implement any agreements. However, sources warn that the military—while professional and legitimate—remains constrained by political paralysis and a culture of avoiding initiative.
Leaked drafts of a potential understanding document suggest that while the Israel-Hezbollah conflict may end, Israel will retain the right to respond if Hezbollah rearm or launch new attacks. The talks aim to position Lebanon, not Iran or Hezbollah, as the primary interlocutor—a symbolic and strategic shift that could undermine Hezbollah’s legitimacy if successful.
Why It Matters: The Fragility of a Hybrid State
American officials caution that Hezbollah’s survival depends less on regional wars and more on Lebanon’s institutional resilience. The group’s political and institutional networks—rooted in military and security institutions—make any purely military solution unsustainable. Intelligence sources note a growing disconnect among Shia communities from Hezbollah, but no definitive rupture, highlighting the need for a new social contract between the state and Lebanon’s Shia population.
While the U.S. Can facilitate negotiations, provide intelligence support, and bolster the military, the real test lies in Lebanon’s ability to translate diplomatic momentum into domestic sovereignty. Without cohesive political leadership, the army—despite its professionalism—remains an instrument of state, not its architect. The Pentagon’s preferred approach may shift from arms supplies to political and intelligence backing for a state-led strategy.
What May Happen Next: Three Possible Scenarios
Scenario 1: A Step-by-Step Ceasefire Framework If Lebanon and Israel agree on a “step-for-step” de-escalation, Hezbollah could face pressure to disarm incrementally. However, without parallel political reforms, the group may redirect its aggression internally to preserve its political foothold, as U.S. Sources suggest it could become “more aggressive domestically” if its external leverage diminishes.
Scenario 2: The Pilot Zone Experiment Israel’s proposed “Pilot Zone” could create a demilitarized buffer, but its success hinges on Lebanese state capacity to enforce it. If the military lacks political backing, Hezbollah could exploit gaps, undermining the zone’s credibility. The U.S. May push for intelligence-sharing to monitor compliance, but enforcement would still depend on Lebanon’s fragmented institutions.
Scenario 3: Diplomatic Deadlock and Escalation If talks stall—or if Hezbollah perceives U.S. Pressure as targeting its institutional power—it could accelerate rearmament or provoke clashes to regain leverage. American officials warn that shifting negotiations to a U.S.-Iran channel would play into Hezbollah’s hands, weakening Washington’s current diplomatic track.
Frequently Asked Questions
[Question 1] Why is the U.S. Focusing on Lebanon’s state institutions rather than just Hezbollah’s military capabilities? Answer: Sources indicate that Hezbollah’s survival depends on its embedded political and institutional networks, not just arms. A purely military approach ignores its financial, logistical, and social support systems, which could allow it to rebound even after disarmament.
[Question 2] Could the Lebanese military enforce any agreement without political support? Answer: While the military retains professional strength and legitimacy, it operates as an instrument of state, not an independent actor. Without clear political directives, its ability to execute strategies—such as demilitarization or border control—would be limited by institutional fragmentation and resource shortages.
[Question 3] What would a “De-Hezbollah-fication” strategy entail? Answer: U.S. Sources describe it as dismantling Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon’s “deep state,” including its covert infrastructure, internal influence networks, and financial operations. This goes beyond disarmament to target the group’s systemic integration into state institutions.
With Hezbollah’s influence deeply woven into Lebanon’s political fabric, can the country’s institutions ever fully reclaim sovereignty—or will external powers always dictate its future?