Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam's visit to Washington was crucial. In all of its meetings, the Lebanese delegation found that the American side was well informed about developments in the Land of the Cedars: governmental decisions, institutional performance and conduct, as well as the slow pace of implementation by the authorities concerned of what have rightly been described as historic decisions aimed at disarmament, extending sovereignty, and restoring the state. No previous Lebanese government has taken such measures since the Cairo Agreement 57 years ago.
Salam reaffirmed the decision to disarm and proposed a "reciprocal formula," the essence of which is that the Lebanese Army would clear an area north of the Litani River in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from an area south of it. This proposal represented a partial correction of the gray-zone policy that has exacerbated losses and was based on the premise that Israeli attacks would cease and Israeli forces would withdraw, after which the Lebanese Army would deploy and the authorities would address the issue of illegal weapons.
The problem with this proposal, however, is that it goes beyond the substance of the November 27, 2024 agreement, which included Hezbollah's consent to strip legitimacy from its weapons across Lebanon, place arms exclusively under the control of legitimate military and security forces, and dismantle illegal military, financial, and social infrastructure.
At the time, under the weight of Hezbollah's defeat, the assassination of its commanders and cadres, and the devastation inflicted on Lebanon by Israel, the negotiating duo of Nabih Berri and Naim Qassem agreed to the accord delivered by US mediator Amos Hochstein.
This agreement became the basis for the tripartite "framework agreement." Whatever may be said about it, it reflected the prevailing balance of power after the Iranian regime, through its Lebanese proxy, had drawn the occupation back into Lebanon and created an occupied "yellow zone" extending north of the Litani River, while inflicting a major catastrophe on the southern community.
Yet the agreement made no reference to yellow or gray zones. It included Israel's commitment to "redeploy the Israeli Army outside Lebanese borders" and rested on an inescapable equation for restoring sovereignty: land in exchange for weapons.
Salam's "reciprocal formula" was met by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio with a three-step approach that remained consistent with both the framework agreement and the ceasefire agreement, as well as with Lebanese Cabinet decisions.
First, the disarmament of Hezbollah and the dismantling of its infrastructure. Second, the deployment and strengthening of the Lebanese Army. Third, a gradual Israeli withdrawal beyond Lebanon's borders. The Americans also stressed that Lebanese sovereignty could not remain hostage to Hezbollah's goodwill.
The Washington talks carried a clear US warning about the dangers of keeping disarmament on hold, as this delay gives Israel a pretext to avoid withdrawal. They also conveyed the view that Lebanon faces a fundamental test: whether its legitimate government can translate its constitutional decisions to disarm Hezbollah and ban its military and security activities into tangible reality.
The discussions further emphasized that sovereignty involves far more than a symbolic deployment of troops. What was meant was the much-publicized military deployment that followed appeals from southern Lebanese towns and villages demanding the return of state authority as the sole legitimate authority, along with the collection of illegal weapons and the dismantling of Hezbollah's military and security structures.
The precise description of the military deployment mission highlighted the need to prevent a repeat of the Ali al-Taher Hill experience, whether for a second or third time, through serious military steps toward Jabal al-Rayhan, the Sujud and Mleeta hills, as well as Birkat Jabbour in western Bekaa. These areas would be cleared of illegal weapons belonging to Hezbollah and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, thereby obstructing Israeli plans to continue destruction and displacement while providing broader protection to towns, villages, and civilians.
The opposite happened around Ali al-Taher, where the fall of the ridge and its tunnel network led to widespread devastation in the Nabatieh region and intensified displacement.
It has become evident that the US is now Lebanon's principal destination for securing the political support that can give the government enough room to confront the mounting challenges weighing heavily on the country. It has also become clear to many Lebanese, including a significant segment of the southern population, that the narrative claiming that the "resistance" protects Lebanon, the South, and its people is false. Reality demonstrates that this "resistance" constitutes a major obstacle to reconstruction, safe return, and the preservation of people's dignity.
Procrastination is dangerous for Lebanon, and deadlock in political negotiations only deepens the risks. The battered country cannot afford the luxury of waiting for regional solutions and settlements, "which may or may not come, may take years, and if they do arrive, could come at our expense," as Prime Minister Salam stated in Nabatieh last Friday.
Accordingly, the time has come to abandon the gray policies that have characterized the state's performance for many months, during which it appeared to be waiting for others to carry out duties that are solely its own responsibility. Swift disarmament, coupled with the launch of a genuine reform process rooted in accountability and oversight, has become the mandatory passage for Lebanon's transition from the era before the Gaza and Iran "support wars" to the era after them: an era of sovereignty in both its political and economic-financial dimensions. Such a shift would close a long chapter marked by violations of Lebanese territory, abuses of citizens' rights, and assaults on justice.
It would also mark the end of the era of Lebanon as an arena for regional conflicts and the beginning of Lebanon as a nation-state that protects its citizens, safeguards their dignity, relieves them of injustice, and reverses the effects of deliberate impoverishment that has humiliated them and pushed the majority below the poverty line.
