On 26 June, Lebanon, Israel and the United States signed a trilateral framework agreement in Washington aimed at ending months of hostilities, but within hours Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem declared it “null and void,” describing the accord as a “humiliation” and a “surrender of sovereignty.” Protests erupted in Beirut and the southern suburb of Dahiyeh, with demonstrators blocking roads and chanting anti-normalisation slogans. The agreement, the product of five rounds of direct talks, sets out a phased process for Israeli withdrawal contingent on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) restoring state authority and the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups, primarily Hezbollah.

Viewed from Beirut, the Lebanese presidency characterised the accord as “a first step” towards restoring sovereignty and enabling displaced citizens to return, with President Joseph Aoun vowing to continue working until full liberation. In Washington, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it “the beginning of the beginning,” announcing $100 million in humanitarian aid and $30 million in reimbursement for the LAF. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, stressed that Israeli forces would remain in occupied southern Lebanon “until Hezbollah is disarmed,” and that a security zone would be maintained to prevent the return of displaced populations. The Israeli envoy to the US, Yechiel Leiter, framed the deal as ensuring “Iran is out, Hezbollah is out.”

Hezbollah’s rejection centres on the linkage between Israeli withdrawal and its own disarmament, which Qassem described as crossing “all red lines.” He insisted that resistance arms would not be surrendered and that Israel must withdraw unconditionally. The group’s position is reinforced by Tehran: according to Hezbollah’s statement, the US-Iran memorandum of understanding signed earlier this month already guarantees Lebanon’s territorial integrity and should be implemented instead. Iran has insisted that any settlement to the broader Middle East war must include Lebanon, and Hezbollah argues that the Lebanese government’s direct negotiations with Israel, initiated on 2 March, constituted a unilateral concession and a “backstab.”

The framework’s security annex, not made public, details a “reciprocal, sequenced process” beginning with two pilot zones where the LAF will assume security responsibility after verified disarmament. Only then will Israeli forces redeploy and reconstruction begin. Analysts in London note that the performance-based structure effectively gives Israel a veto over the pace of withdrawal, as any armed presence could be cited as non-compliance. The agreement also commits Lebanon to preventing funds from reaching non-state armed groups and to proscribing their activities. The Amal movement, led by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, has criticised the framework as unbalanced, while a Hezbollah MP warned of civil war if disarmament is enforced.

The signing follows repeated failed ceasefires, including an April 17 truce that collapsed, and violence subsided only after the US-Iran memorandum. Israeli forces continue to occupy swathes of southern Lebanon, where over 4,200 people have been killed and more than one million displaced since March. The framework envisages the establishment of working groups to draft a comprehensive peace agreement, but the immediate next steps—the formation of a US-facilitated military working group and the identification of pilot zones—face the fundamental obstacle of Hezbollah’s non-cooperation. The Lebanese state’s ability to enforce disarmament without triggering internal conflict remains the central question.