A framework agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel in Washington on 26 June, and a subsequently leaked security annex, have laid out a phased process that conditions any Israeli military withdrawal from southern Lebanon on the verifiable disarmament of Hezbollah and other non-state armed groups. According to US State Department officials, the accord establishes a “clear understanding based on mutual commitments” and represents the most significant bilateral arrangement since 1983. The annex, whose authenticity has not been officially confirmed but which was published by several regional outlets, details a four-step model for designated pilot zones: clearance of armed personnel and infrastructure, third-party verification, deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces, and internationally supported reconstruction. A joint Military Coordination Group for Lebanon (MCG4L) is to oversee implementation and report to both sides through indirect military channels.

The agreement has drawn sharply divergent reactions inside Lebanon. President Joseph Aoun’s office and allied parliamentary blocs, including the Lebanese Forces and Kataeb, describe it as a necessary instrument to restore state sovereignty and break the cycle of war. Supporters argue that the continued engagement of the United States as a mediator provides a mechanism to manage the conflict and prevent an open-ended Israeli occupation. In contrast, Hezbollah’s leadership has declared the accord “non-existent” and vowed not to recognise any political or security outcomes derived from it. Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, a key ally, labelled it an “imposed settlement” that will not be implemented. The group’s officials have warned that any attempt to enforce disarmament could trigger internal strife, while insisting that their rejection does not yet extend to resigning from the government, a step they say would require a clear political strategy.

Viewed from Tehran, the framework is portrayed as a joint US-Israeli scheme to dismantle the military capacity of the “resistance.” Iranian state media have presented the leaked annex as evidence of a conspiracy to impose Lebanese state control over all territory and guarantee Israel’s long-term security. Regional analysts, including those based in Beirut and London, assess that the accord’s central bargain — Israeli redeployment in exchange for Hezbollah’s disarmament — is structurally unworkable because no Lebanese government possesses the coercive power to compel the group to surrender its arsenal. Several analysts note that the agreement effectively places the entire burden of implementation on Lebanon while granting Israel a conditional framework to maintain a military presence, potentially converting the current buffer zone into a permanent reality. The Gulf Cooperation Council, however, has issued a statement of strong support, a move that Beirut-based observers say further isolates the accord’s domestic opponents.

The dossier now moves to working groups expected to convene within weeks to elaborate the security annex and define the first pilot zones, which Israeli officials have identified as the towns of Zawtar al-Gharbiya and Froun. The Lebanese army is tasked with leading clearance and verification, yet Hezbollah’s declared non-cooperation raises immediate questions about the feasibility of the model. Concurrently, the United Nations has presented three options for the post-UNIFIL phase, while France and Italy have proposed a new peacekeeping force. The Lebanese government has not clarified whether the framework requires parliamentary ratification, and the clause waiving Lebanon’s right to prosecute Israel for war crimes has drawn sharp criticism from legal observers. With the ceasefire still marred by Israeli violations and Hezbollah insisting on continued resistance, the implementation timeline remains uncertain.