A framework agreement signed by Israel and Lebanon in Washington on 26 June has immediately collided with the political realities of the Lebanese state, after Hezbollah and its key ally, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, rejected the deal as an imposed settlement that will not be implemented. The accord, mediated by the United States, establishes a performance-based path under which Israeli forces would progressively redeploy from southern Lebanon only after the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups—a direct reference to Hezbollah—and the restoration of Lebanese army authority. Berri, who heads the Shi’ite Amal Movement, described the text as “an agreement of dictates” and warned it could incite internal divisions and draw Lebanese into confrontation among themselves. Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem called the framework “null and void” and a surrender of sovereignty, insisting the group would not be bound by a process from which it was excluded.

Viewed from Tel Aviv, the agreement provides a diplomatic mechanism to maintain an open-ended military presence in the self-declared security zone stretching up to ten kilometres inside Lebanese territory. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that troops would remain until Hezbollah is disarmed and no further threat emanates from Lebanon, while Defence Minister Israel Katz emphasised that the Israel Defense Forces would not withdraw “a single millimetre” from the security zone until that condition is met. Israeli security sources, cited in domestic media, assess that Hezbollah retains the capacity to obstruct implementation even without being a signatory, and they anticipate possible escalation directed by Iran. The Israeli government treats the framework as a bilateral agreement with the sovereign Lebanese state, deliberately decoupled from the parallel US-Iran memorandum of understanding, though Tehran has insisted that any Lebanon ceasefire must be part of its own interim deal with Washington.

From Beirut, the administration of President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has embraced the agreement as a first step toward reclaiming territory and asserting state sovereignty. Aoun told the visiting head of US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, that the Lebanese army intends to extend its authority to the internationally recognised southern border. The Lebanese government, which has pursued a policy of disarming Hezbollah since the group was weakened in the 2024 war, faces a structural dilemma: the army is neither equipped nor politically positioned to forcibly disarm the most powerful armed faction in a sectarian power-sharing system. Analysts in Beirut and London describe the bargain as inherently imbalanced, placing the entire burden of disarmament on a fragile state while granting Israel a diplomatic cover to prolong its occupation. Michael Young, a Beirut-based analyst, said the agreement “creates a structure that allows the Israelis to remain indefinitely,” while Fawaz Gerges of the London School of Economics called it “born dead” and warned that the buffer zone risks becoming permanent.

The current war reignited on 2 March when Hezbollah fired rockets at northern Israel in solidarity with Iran following US-Israeli strikes on Iranian targets. Since then, Israeli military operations have killed more than 4,200 people in Lebanon and displaced around one million, according to Lebanese authorities. The framework agreement foresees two initial pilot zones where the Lebanese army would assume security control, with a US-supported coordination group overseeing verification. A security annex detailing further arrangements remains under preparation. US-facilitated talks are scheduled to resume on Tuesday, with Washington pledging $30 million to bolster the Lebanese armed forces. The coming weeks will test whether the Lebanese state can begin to assert control in the south without triggering the internal conflict that Berri and Hezbollah have warned against.