Israeli forces remain until Hezbollah disarms—a condition that may never be met
In Washington on a Friday in late June, Israel and Lebanon signed a fourteen-point framework agreement brokered by American diplomacy, affirming each nation's right to peace and sovereignty as neighboring states. The accord envisions Lebanese armed forces reclaiming territorial control contingent on the disarmament of non-state groups—a condition that points directly, and uncomfortably, at Hezbollah, which was absent from the signing and has given no indication of compliance. More than four thousand Lebanese lives have been lost and over a million people displaced in a conflict that has already outlasted two prior ceasefires, reminding us that the distance between a signed document and a durable peace is measured not in words but in the willingness of those who hold the guns.
- Hezbollah, the most powerful armed actor in southern Lebanon, was not party to the agreement and has shown no sign of withdrawing from the South Litani zone—leaving the framework's central condition unmet before the ink has dried.
- Israeli strikes have killed at least 4,192 Lebanese people and displaced over 1.2 million, while two prior ceasefires have already collapsed under the weight of continued cross-border fire.
- Netanyahu has made Israeli withdrawal conditional and gradual, insisting forces remain until Hezbollah disarms—a timeline that Hezbollah itself has not accepted and may actively resist.
- Trump claimed he can 'control Israel from attacking Lebanon,' yet simultaneously authorized US strikes on Iranian military facilities the same day the agreement was signed, signaling that the broader regional war is far from contained.
- Lebanon's government, weakened by years of economic collapse and political paralysis, is being asked to reassert sovereign authority over territory held by a militia that answers to Tehran—with international support promised but the outcome deeply uncertain.
On a Friday in Washington, Israel and Lebanon signed a fourteen-point framework agreement, the product of intensive American negotiation led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The document affirms both nations' right to peace and security as sovereign neighbors, calls for the release of detainees, the recovery of remains, and envisions the Lebanese Armed Forces restoring control over all Lebanese territory—contingent on the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups. A US-supported military coordination group would oversee implementation. On paper, it is a reasonable architecture for coexistence.
But the ground tells a different story. Since March, when Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel following an Israeli strike that killed Iran's supreme leader, the conflict has deepened dramatically. Lebanese health authorities report at least 4,192 killed and more than 11,600 wounded by Israeli strikes, with over 1.2 million people displaced. Two prior ceasefires—one in April, one in June—failed to stop the fighting. Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia that controls southern Lebanon and was not present at Friday's signing, has given no indication it will withdraw from the South Litani area, the strategic zone at the heart of the conflict.
Netanyahu moved quickly to define the agreement's practical limits: Israeli forces would remain in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah disarms, with withdrawal conditional and gradual. Lebanon's President Joseph Aoun called the framework a first step toward restoring sovereignty—though sovereignty here means something constrained, with Israeli troops on the ground, a militia answering to Tehran, and American oversight in place.
Trump's role has been assertive and contradictory. He has publicly criticized Netanyahu while insisting Israel has the right to defend itself, and claimed he could 'control Israel from attacking Lebanon.' Even as the agreement was being signed, he accused Iran of violating a separate truce and authorized US strikes on Iranian military facilities in the Strait of Hormuz. The framework is a step, but whether it holds depends on actors—Hezbollah, Iran, and the fragile Lebanese state—who were not in the room and remain largely beyond the control of the two governments that signed it.
On Friday in Washington, Israel and Lebanon put their names to a fourteen-point framework agreement, the product of several days of intensive American negotiation. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio framed it as the beginning of a structure for durable peace and security between the two countries. Yet the agreement arrived into a landscape already scarred by failure: previous ceasefires had crumbled, cross-border fire had continued almost daily, and the most consequential actor in the conflict—Hezbollah—was not in the room.
The framework itself reads like a careful diplomatic construction. Both nations affirm each other's right to live in peace and security as neighboring sovereign states. They pledge to end hostile actions in international forums, to work toward releasing detainees and recovering remains. Both also reserve the right to defend themselves. The agreement envisions the Lebanese Armed Forces restoring sovereign control over all Lebanese territory, contingent on the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and the dismantling of their infrastructure. A US-supported military coordination group would oversee implementation. On paper, it is a reasonable architecture for coexistence.
But the ground tells a different story. Since March 2, when Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike that killed Iran's supreme leader, the conflict has metastasized. Israeli air campaigns and ground operations have followed. According to Lebanese health authorities, Israeli strikes have killed at least 4,192 people and wounded more than 11,600. Over 1.2 million Lebanese have been displaced from their homes. On the Israeli side, authorities report 36 soldiers and four civilians killed across the border. An earlier ceasefire brokered by the US on April 16 failed to hold. A June renewal of that fragile arrangement also did not stop the fighting.
Hezbollah's absence from Friday's signing is not a minor detail. It is unclear whether the Iranian-backed militia will agree to withdraw its fighters from the South Litani area, the strategic zone in southern Lebanon that has become the focal point of the conflict. The US has worried that continued tension between Israel and Hezbollah could undermine a separate peace deal with Iran that includes a commitment to end fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon. Without Hezbollah's consent or compliance, the framework remains a document signed by two parties to a conflict in which a third party holds considerable leverage.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved quickly to define what the agreement meant in practice. Israeli forces, he said, would remain in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah disarms. The Israeli army currently occupies roughly five percent of Lebanese territory. Netanyahu indicated that Israel was permitting the Lebanese army to begin organizing to take control in two pilot zones—one south of the Litani River and one north of it. The message was clear: Israeli withdrawal would be conditional and gradual, contingent on verifiable disarmament that Hezbollah has shown no sign of accepting.
President Joseph Aoun of Lebanon characterized the framework as a first step toward restoring his country's sovereignty. Yet sovereignty, in this context, means something constrained. Lebanon is asking for support from international partners and Arab states, under American leadership, to achieve the disarmament and territorial control the agreement envisions. The Lebanese state, weakened by years of economic crisis and political dysfunction, is being asked to reassert authority over territory controlled by a militia that answers to Tehran, with Israeli forces still on the ground and American oversight in place.
Donald Trump's role in brokering the agreement has been marked by tension and assertion. He has publicly criticized Netanyahu and Israeli conduct in the conflict, and on one occasion held a terse phone call with the Israeli prime minister in which he reportedly used an expletive. Yet Trump has also insisted that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah rocket fire. In an interview with Axios, Trump claimed he could "control Israel from attacking Lebanon," saying "They have a lot of respect for me. They do as I say." The framework agreement itself concludes with both Israel and Lebanon expressing deep appreciation for Trump's vision and leadership—a diplomatic flourish that underscores American centrality to whatever comes next.
On Friday, as the agreement was being signed, Trump accused Iran of a "foolish violation" of the truce after a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz came under attack. US Central Command responded by striking Iranian missile and drone storage facilities and coastal radar positions. Iran issued no official response. The broader regional tensions that drew Lebanon into this conflict in the first place—the struggle between the US and Israel against Iran—remain unresolved. The framework agreement is a step, but whether it can hold depends on forces and actors largely beyond the control of the two governments that signed it.
Notable Quotes
Israeli forces will remain in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah disarms— Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
The framework is a first step to restoring sovereignty— Lebanese President Joseph Aoun
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that Hezbollah wasn't at the signing?
Because Hezbollah controls the territory Israel wants cleared. You can have the most elegant agreement on paper, but if the armed group that actually holds the ground doesn't sign on, the agreement is just words.
So the Lebanese government can't enforce this on its own?
Not really. Lebanon's state is weak—economically, militarily, politically. Hezbollah is more powerful in the south than the Lebanese army is. The agreement essentially asks Lebanon to do something it may not have the capacity to do without either Israeli forces staying indefinitely or Hezbollah voluntarily stepping back.
Netanyahu said Israeli forces stay until Hezbollah disarms. That sounds like a long time.
It could be. Hezbollah has never disarmed. It's an Iranian proxy with a political wing, a social services network, and a military arsenal. Asking it to disarm is asking it to cease to exist as a force. That's not a negotiating position—that's a demand for surrender.
What about Trump's claim that he can control Israel?
He's trying to project confidence and influence. But the phone call with Netanyahu where Trump reportedly swore at him suggests the relationship is more fraught than Trump's public statements let on. Trump wants credit for the deal, but he also needs Israel to actually comply with it. That's harder than saying "they do as I say."
Has any of this actually stopped the fighting?
Not really. There have been ceasefires before—April, June—and fighting continued through them. The intensity has dropped recently, but cross-border strikes are still happening. The framework is a diplomatic achievement, but it hasn't changed the underlying reality on the ground.
What happens if this fails like the others?
Then you're back to a low-level conflict that could reignite at any moment. Over a million Lebanese are already displaced. More fighting means more casualties, more displacement, more regional instability. And Iran is still involved—the cargo ship attack on Friday shows that.