Israel and Lebanon signed a trilateral framework agreement in Washington on Friday, mediated by the United States, establishing a phased process that ties an Israeli military withdrawal to the verified disarmament of Hezbollah and other non-state armed groups. The signing, attended by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, followed several rounds of direct negotiations and sets out a sequence in which the Lebanese Armed Forces would assume full security control over pilot areas, enabling a gradual redeployment of Israeli troops from Lebanese territory. A joint military coordination group, with US participation, is to oversee implementation, while a security annex will detail verification mechanisms and further steps.

Viewed from Tel Aviv, the accord represents a strategic shift. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described it as a “historic achievement” that strikes at Iran and Hezbollah, asserting that both Washington and Beirut have recognised Israel’s right to maintain a security zone in southern Lebanon until the group is fully disarmed. Defence Minister Israel Katz stated that no Israeli withdrawal would occur before disarmament, and that forces would remain in the security zone—including the Shqif area—with freedom of military action to counter threats. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, however, called the agreement a grave error, arguing that the Lebanese state cannot be trusted to disarm Hezbollah.

In Beirut, the government of President Joseph Aoun welcomed the framework as a first step toward restoring full sovereignty and territorial integrity. Yet Hezbollah’s leadership immediately rejected the accord. Secretary-General Naim Qassem labelled it “null and void,” a “terrible fall” that surrenders sovereignty by conditioning withdrawal on disarmament—a linkage he said crosses all red lines and legitimises prolonged occupation. Hezbollah parliamentarian Hassan Fadlallah insisted direct negotiations with Israel violate Article 52 of the constitution and warned that imposing the agreement could push the country toward civil war. The Lebanese army, while respecting peaceful expression, cautioned against uncalculated protests and affirmed it would not permit security breaches or attacks on public and private property.

Tehran-aligned media and Hezbollah officials pointed to a separate Iran-US memorandum of understanding as the proper framework, claiming it guaranteed Lebanese sovereignty and an unconditional ceasefire. According to Hezbollah’s account, Iran had suspended that MOU and blocked the Strait of Hormuz to pressure Washington into enforcing a truce, only for Lebanese authorities to later concede what it called Israel’s demands. From Washington, the US State Department presented the framework as the start of a path toward lasting peace, with Rubio emphasising that future reconstruction aid would be conditional on verifiable disarmament and transparency. European capitals, including Paris, welcomed the deal and stressed the need for full Lebanese sovereignty and a state monopoly on weapons.

Implementation now hinges on the pilot areas—initially the villages of Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Frun—where the Lebanese army is to deploy after verified disarmament, allowing a test of the phased withdrawal. Working groups are to be formed immediately to draft a comprehensive peace and security agreement, with further direct negotiations under US mediation. The framework also commits the United States to mobilising international support for Lebanon’s reconstruction, contingent on preventing funds from reaching armed groups. The coming weeks will test whether the Lebanese state can assert control in the south without triggering the internal confrontation Hezbollah has warned against.