Israel Opts for Decisive Action: From Gaza to Lebanon, Conditioning Peace on the Dismantling of Hezbollah’s Military and Security Infrastructure

Masdar Diplomacy
By Marlene Khalife

Israel has set its sights on a decisive course of action stretching from Gaza to Lebanon. According to overlapping accounts from sources close to Western—particularly American—policy circles, this phase of escalation has already begun in Gaza and is expected to extend to Lebanon.

Although Lebanon still enjoys relative calm, Israel continues its daily assassinations in the south, relentless shelling of villages and towns, and the prevention of displaced residents from returning to more than 22 southern localities. These actions constitute repeated violations of the agreement that halted hostilities on November 27, 2024. Despite Hezbollah’s withdrawal from areas south of the Litani River and its deliberate restraint in responding to Israeli provocations—meant to give the Lebanese government room to pursue diplomacy and avoid dragging the country back into war—Israel insists on stripping Hezbollah of its weapons as part of a sweeping security strategy designed to place the entire region under its control.

Disarmament Mechanism: Between Domestic Dynamics and External Pressures

On September 5, the Lebanese government, acting on a proposal from the army, approved a mechanism for the surrender of weapons, though without setting a deadline. Past experiences have shown that piecemeal concessions do little to alter Israel’s posture. Multiple sources indicate that what concerns both Israel and the United States is not the defensive weaponry scattered throughout Lebanese communities, but rather Hezbollah’s heavy arsenal.

Yet Israel’s ambitions go further: it seeks to dismantle Hezbollah’s security apparatus itself, from its most sophisticated intelligence organs down to the smallest roadside coffee kiosks linked to its network.

Joseph Aoun at the Heart of Negotiations

Sources describe President Joseph Aoun as the figure most attuned to the gravity of the moment. Washington is engaging him directly in negotiations over Hezbollah’s weapons, while Aoun also maintains discreet channels of communication with Hezbollah officials.

In stark contrast, relations remain severed between Hezbollah and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who is viewed largely as a politician posturing for Sunni street support and Gulf favor, particularly from Saudi Arabia.

According to these sources, Riyadh—contrary to portrayals in some Lebanese media—is keen on preserving domestic stability. Alongside Washington, it supports efforts to pursue Hezbollah’s disarmament within an international framework that avoids civil conflict. Israel, however, pushes further toward uncompromising radicalism, creating a significant rift even with its American ally.

Domestic Arena: Political Noise vs. Real Negotiations

Within Lebanon, some political parties—foremost among them the Lebanese Forces—have amplified calls for Hezbollah’s disarmament. But well-informed sources dismiss these campaigns as largely rhetorical, underscoring that substantive negotiations are taking place directly between President Aoun and U.S. officials.

The September 5 cabinet session, widely described as “orchestrated,” was merely an attempt to recalibrate the domestic scene after tensions had peaked during two earlier government sessions in August.

Hezbollah’s claims that it is being “cornered” are also contested by these sources, who stress that both Washington and President Aoun are seeking exit strategies that would allow the party to preserve face. So far, however, Hezbollah’s negotiators have been unresponsive for reasons that remain unclear. U.S. envoy Tom Brack has repeatedly stated that workable solutions exist that could reassure all sides, including Hezbollah itself.

Risks of Deadlock: Israeli Escalation and Direct Threats

What some sources describe as Hezbollah’s “intransigence” is said to strengthen Israel’s appetite for escalation. Tel Aviv, they warn, is preparing to plunge Lebanon back into war, this time targeting Hezbollah’s vital institutions in Beirut’s southern suburbs and beyond—including schools, hospitals, and social service centers. Such a scenario is described as nothing less than “a recipe for political suicide” for the group.

For now, the Gaza war continues to impose a temporary calm on Lebanon. But once Israel concludes its operations there, it is expected to shift its focus northward once again.

Diverging U.S.–Israeli Agendas Across the Region

The policy divergence between Washington and Tel Aviv is not confined to Lebanon. In Gaza, the United States is pushing for a settlement that preserves some political standing for Hamas, while Israel seeks its total eradication. In Syria, Israel advocates partition, whereas Washington—responding to Saudi and Turkish requests—has tried in vain to bolster Ahmad al-Shar’a’s position. Israel, by contrast, stokes fragmentation, encouraging minority groups, notably the Druze, toward separatism.

In Lebanon, the crux of disagreement lies in sequencing: U.S. officials argue Hezbollah cannot be expected to disarm abruptly without a political framework that offers it a dignified exit, while Israel insists on breaking the party’s backbone militarily and dismantling its security infrastructure.

While Washington continues to back the Lebanese government and army, Israel leans toward absolute maximalism. Indeed, the Israeli lobby in the United States even opposed the most recent American military aid package to the Lebanese army—worth $15 million. For now, Tom Brack remains Washington’s point man on the Lebanese file, with Morgan Ortagus working under his direction, according to the same diplomatic sources.

Print