In the recent Lebanon-Israel ceasefire deal, Israel agreed to withdraw from occupied Lebanese territory (which includes about one-fifth of the country), contingent on a complete cessation of attacks by Hezbollah on Israel and the removal of all Hezbollah operatives from southern Lebanon. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) agreed to coordinate a phased Israeli withdrawal, with the LAF moving into designated areas one by one to remove Hezbollah fighters.
This ceasefire deal follows an agreement between Hezbollah and Israel on June 1st, where Israel agreed not to strike Hezbollah’s primary stronghold in Beirut in exchange for the cessation of Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel. Hezbollah’s leader, Naim Qassem, rejected the Lebanese-Israeli-U.S. ceasefire deal outright, since before this deal was announced, Hezbollah had stated that it would agree to a ceasefire and withdrawal from southern Lebanon only if Israel agreed to extricate itself from Lebanese territory. Hezbollah is concerned that this new agreement could lead to coordinated efforts between Israeli and Lebanese forces against the Islamist terrorist organization. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the primary sponsor of Hezbollah, has condemned the deal while demanding the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Lebanese territory, directly threatening regional escalation in full support of Hezbollah.
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has seriously impacted Lebanon. In recent years, an estimated 3,500 combatants and civilians have been killed and over one million Lebanese have been displaced. The war has resulted in $6.8 billion in physical damage and $7.2 billion in economic losses, with Lebanon’s GDP declining by roughly 40% and its currency losing over 98% of its value since 2019. While the Lebanese and Israeli governments both seek an end to the conflict, there is major disagreement as to the fate of Lebanon after the war. Israel will only cease engagement in Lebanon if Hezbollah ceases to be a threat to northern Israel, and Hezbollah claims that it will only disengage if Israel unconditionally retreats from Lebanon, leaving both parties in a stalemate. To resolve the conflict, the Lebanese government must find a way to neutralize Hezbollah’s influence while reasserting its national sovereignty with regard to Israel, Iran, and non-state actors.
Lebanon’s government faced instability long before the Lebanese Civil War from 1975 to 1990. Its confessional system, where different Sunni, Shia, and Christian citizens are allotted political representation makes stable governance difficult. One major factor in Hezbollah’s influence over southern Lebanon is the security and humanitarian assistance it provides where the Lebanese government lacks the ability to do so. In essence, Lebanon has the fiscal colvency and institutional unity needed to maintain stability and legitimacy since the end of the Lebanese Civil War. Any resolution made concerning the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict that does not address the dysfunction of the Lebanese government risks another civil war and continued domination by foreign powers.
One issue that Israel, Lebanon, and the U.S. have agreed upon in the ceasefire deal is that the LAF will play a significant role in restoring order to the country. On June 3rd, the same day as the announcement of the ceasefire deal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified before Congress, “What we would like to see is the Lebanese Armed Forces with the strength and capability to disarm Hezbollah.” It is in the American, Israeli, and Lebanese national interests to have a sovereign, non-sectarian defense force in Lebanon. An “armed political party,” dependent on another nation’s interests and resources, will not be conducive to long-term security and sovereignty. Michel Issa, the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, remarked in his opening statement to the Senate during his confirmation that the LAF is both a reliable partner and central to a legitimate, responsible, and sovereign Lebanese state. This reflects a longstanding U.S. commitment to supporting Lebanese sovereignty and giving the LAF the resources necessary to reassert the sovereignty of the Lebanese state.
Hyperinflation has made Lebanon dependent on the U.S. and other donors for even its most basic state functions. Since 2006, the U.S. has provided more than $3 billion in cumulative military aid, including $190 million to the LAF and $230 million total to Lebanon’s security forces in 2025. The EU and Qatar have also generously supported Lebanon over the past few years with $100 million and $430 million, respectively. Still, this funding pales in comparison to Hezbollah’s financial backing, totaling between $800 million and $1 billion per year, mostly from Iran. Despite the significant amount of financial assistance supplied to the LAF, most of it covers only basic operations and pay, leaving it with few resources to acquire better technology and other means necessary to effectively push Hezbollah out of the country.
The Lebanese President, Joseph Aoun, is a former LAF general who came to power after a prolonged political stalemate that left a presidential vacuum for over two years. When interviewed by CNN about the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, he argued that Hezbollah can only be dealt with domestically through negotiation and persuasion. While negotiations sound much more appealing than continued violence, his belief in Hezbollah’s willingness to cooperate is unfounded. In his testimony, Rubio detailed its continuous disregard for temporary ceasefires between Israel and Hezbollah. Ultimately, Hezbollah is too intertwined with Iran, too embedded with the Lebanese people, and too ideological to be held accountable by a government totally lacking in hard power. Instead of asserting that he will do “everything he can to protect his people” from both Israeli strikes and Hezbollah retaliation, President Aoun must be firm in his position. The LAF will have to increase military coordination with Israel to systematically push Hezbollah out of the country, earn the confidence of the U.S. and other investors for increased support, and also consider major constitutional reforms to alleviate the sectarian dysfunction that led to Hezbollah in the first place.
While the U.S. has mainly assisted in ceasefire negotiations between irreconcilable groups, further investment in the LAF and increased operational assistance will be essential to cultivate Lebanese efforts to reestablish sovereignty over their own territory. The testimony of the secretary of state, ambassador to Lebanon, and the recent ceasefire deal all recognize the importance of the LAF. For the LAF and the Lebanese government to be effective, the U.S. must consider how deeply any Lebanese effort will have to rely on U.S. support, and whether their efforts are worth the desired goal. In doing so, the U.S. would not only have the opportunity to eradicate extremist movements but would also have a direct influence in the protection of religious freedom in Lebanon, allowing for the restoration of peace to a troubled, spiritually religiously area of the world.
