The group itself offered no public comment, but walked out in protest.
US envoy Tom Barrack outlined four-phase disarmament plan requiring Lebanese government decree within 15 days and complete Hezbollah weapons surrender by December 31, 2025. Plan includes Israeli military cessation, troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon positions, prisoner releases, and international reconstruction financing led by US, Saudi Arabia, France, and Qatar.
- US envoy Tom Barrack presented four-phase disarmament plan requiring Lebanese government decree within 15 days
- Complete Hezbollah weapons surrender deadline set for December 31, 2025
- Plan includes Israeli military cessation and withdrawal from southern Lebanon positions
- Hezbollah ministers boycotted cabinet meeting in protest on Thursday
- Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah leader, killed in 2024 Israeli offensive
The US presented Lebanon with a detailed proposal to disarm Hezbollah by year-end, coordinating Israeli troop withdrawal and military ceasefire. Lebanon's government agreed to objectives while Hezbollah allies protested the plan.
In the weeks following a fragile ceasefire agreement, the United States has laid out its most detailed roadmap yet for dismantling Hezbollah's military apparatus. American envoy Tom Barrack presented Lebanon's government with a four-phase plan that would require the Iranian-backed militant group to surrender all weapons by the end of 2025, coordinated with an Israeli military withdrawal from southern Lebanese territory. The Lebanese government, led by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, signaled acceptance of the plan's broad objectives and the principle of Israeli troop pullback, though officials stopped short of committing to implementation details.
The proposal arrives at a precarious moment. A ceasefire negotiated in November has already shown signs of strain, with mounting complaints that Israel has violated its terms through airstrikes and cross-border operations. The new American framework appears designed to shore up that agreement before it collapses entirely, establishing clear benchmarks and timelines that neither side can easily abandon without international scrutiny.
The plan unfolds in four stages. Within fifteen days, Lebanon's government would need to issue a formal decree pledging complete Hezbollah disarmament by December 31st. In exchange, Israel would halt all military operations—ground, air, and naval. The second phase, beginning within sixty days, requires Lebanon to develop and approve a detailed implementation strategy, specifying which Hezbollah weapons caches would be seized and placed under state control. Simultaneously, Israel would begin withdrawing from positions it holds in the south, and Lebanese prisoners held by Tel Aviv would be released through Red Cross coordination. By the ninety-day mark of phase three, Israel would vacate its remaining southern positions. The final phase, within 120 days, demands the dismantling of Hezbollah's heaviest weapons—missiles and drones—after which the United States, Saudi Arabia, France, Qatar, and allied nations would convene an international conference to finance Lebanon's reconstruction and economic recovery.
Hezbollah's response was swift and defiant. The group itself offered no public comment on the proposal, but three political sources told Reuters that Hezbollah ministers and their Shiite allies boycotted Thursday's cabinet meeting in protest, refusing to participate in discussions about their own disarmament. The walkout signals the depth of resistance within Lebanon's government to any plan that would strip the organization of its military capacity.
The stakes are rooted in recent history. Last year's war between Israel and Hezbollah was devastating. Israeli forces delivered severe blows to the group, including the killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the organization's longtime leader. The conflict itself was an escalation of tensions that began in October 2023, when Hezbollah opened fire on Israeli border positions in solidarity with Hamas as the Gaza war erupted. The American proposal now asks Lebanon to complete what Israeli military operations began—the dismantling of a force that has defined Lebanese politics and regional power dynamics for decades.
The proposal's language reveals the urgency driving American diplomacy. Officials describe it as an effort to "extend and stabilize" the existing ceasefire, which remains fragile. The growing number of reported Israeli violations—airstrikes, cross-border raids—threatens to unravel the agreement entirely and reignite full-scale conflict. By establishing a detailed timeline with international backing, the Americans hope to create enough momentum and accountability to keep both sides committed.
What remains unclear is whether Hezbollah will accept constraints on its arsenal, whether Lebanon's government can enforce such constraints against a powerful faction within its own borders, and whether Israel will genuinely withdraw rather than maintain a military presence under different pretenses. The American plan assumes a level of cooperation and good faith that the region's recent history does not obviously support. But for now, it represents the most concrete diplomatic effort to transform the ceasefire from a temporary pause into a durable settlement.
Notable Quotes
Lebanon's government agreed with the plan's objectives and Israeli troop withdrawal, but did not discuss implementation details— Lebanese Information Minister Paul Morcos
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the US think Hezbollah would agree to disarm when it just fought Israel to a standstill?
The plan doesn't assume Hezbollah agrees voluntarily. It's structured so the Lebanese government itself becomes responsible for disarmament, with Israeli withdrawal as the incentive. The idea is that if Israel leaves and reconstruction money flows in, the political cost of maintaining an armed militia becomes harder to justify.
But Hezbollah ministers walked out of the cabinet meeting. That doesn't sound like a group ready to negotiate.
No, it's a signal of defiance. They're saying publicly: we won't participate in our own disarmament. But walking out also means they're not at the table blocking the process entirely. It's a protest, not a complete rejection.
What happens if Israel violates the ceasefire again while this plan is being negotiated?
That's the real danger. The proposal explicitly mentions growing complaints about Israeli violations. If those continue—more airstrikes, more raids—the whole framework collapses. The ceasefire becomes just another broken agreement, and you're back to war.
Is there any chance this actually works?
It depends on whether both sides see more to gain from peace than from fighting. For Lebanon, reconstruction money and stability are real incentives. For Israel, it's the removal of a major threat. For Hezbollah, it's the hardest sell—they lose their reason for existing. The plan assumes external pressure and economic incentives can overcome that.
Who's really driving this—the US, Israel, or Lebanon?
The US is the architect, but Lebanon's government initiated the request. Israel benefits from the outcome but isn't negotiating directly. That's intentional—it keeps the focus on Lebanese sovereignty and reconstruction, not Israeli demands. Whether that framing holds is another question.