The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) published a new report stating that the tripartite agreement signed last week by the United States, Israel, and Lebanon represents the first actual mechanism to enforce the disarmament of Hezbollah, after linking the withdrawal of the Israeli army from southern Lebanon to the implementation of verifiable Lebanese steps to dismantle the party's military capabilities and prevent its rearmament.
The report translated by “Lebanon24” noted that all serious ceasefire agreements since 2006 included the demand for the disarmament of “Hezbollah”, but the new agreement differs from its predecessors as it not only stipulates this commitment, but links it to clear implementation mechanisms, making Israel's withdrawal from the south conditional on the Lebanese state collecting heavy weapons, dismantling military sites belonging to the party, and preventing its rearmament.
The report pointed out that Lebanon is now faced with two options: either disarm “Hezbollah”, or lose the southern border area which may remain under Israeli control, considering that for the first time, the residents of northern Israel will not bear the cost of the party's continued arming, but rather the residents of southern Lebanon will pay it.
The report also noted that in 2006, Speaker of the House Nabih Berri negotiated on behalf of “Hezbollah” on UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and approved it, despite it calling for the disarmament of the party, explaining that Lebanon had also agreed in 2024 to a ceasefire agreement that also included a clause for the disarmament of the party.
The report claimed that “Hezbollah” used, in both instances, Lebanese state institutions to sign agreements it did not intend to implement, having rebuilt its military arsenal and tunnel network after fighting stopped, preparing for a new round of confrontation, considering that the commitments of the Lebanese state were merely tactical ceasefires serving the party, not a real commitment to restore state sovereignty.
The report clarified that the 2026 agreement puts an end to this mechanism, linking Lebanon's recovery of full sovereignty over its southern territories to achieving tangible results, not merely by providing political commitments, stressing that Beirut's failure to implement the commitments will mean a failure to regain full control over the south.
Regarding “Hezbollah's” position, the report stated that the party has shown “open hostility” towards the Lebanese state, pointing out that its media and allies attacked the agreement and considered it “treason”, as it spoke of clashes between the party's supporters and security forces, in addition to propaganda campaigns on the roads praising Iran and urging Lebanon to place itself under “Tehran's guardianship” in any negotiations to end the war with Israel.
The report argued that these movements do not reflect the party's strength, but rather reveal its concern that the success of a sovereign Lebanese government in negotiating a peace agreement constitutes a threat to the Iranian project that outweighs the impact of military losses it is suffering in the field.
The report noted that various circles in Washington had viewed opponents of “Hezbollah” inside Lebanon for years as a marginal force, considering the party speaks in the name of the Lebanese state, and continued: “But the Lebanese government's decision to engage in direct talks with Israel, issue a joint statement, and sign a binding agreement proves - according to the report - that a part of the political class and the Lebanese public chose to support the sovereignty of the state rather than the continued dominance of the party.”
The report stated that “these, despite lacking military power, continue to risk their positions and lives in the face of Hezbollah”, warning that “downplaying them only serves to empower the forces that have held Lebanon hostage for the past two decades”, according to the report's allegations.
The report also addressed the criticisms directed at the agreement, indicating that pro-“Hezbollah” figures in Washington and Beirut consider it unfeasible because the party will not accept surrendering its weapons, which may drag the country into civil war before relinquishing its arsenal. However, the report sees the U.S. agreement with Iran as a...