> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://beirutwire.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Lebanon Pushes Washington to Move the Israel Framework Into Its Next Phase - URL: https://beirutwire.com/lebanon-pushes-washington-to-move-the-israel-framework-into-its-next-phase/ - Published: 2026-09-29T06:11:37.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-29T06:11:37.000Z - Description: Lebanon is pressing Washington to move the June framework with Israel into its next phase, calling for Israeli withdrawals, Lebanese Army deployments and the dismantling of Hezbollah’s military presence to advance step by step rather than remain frozen by disputes over sequencing. - Author: Beirut Wire - Tags: Politics Lebanon is pressing the United States to move its stalled framework with Israel into a new phase, arguing that Israeli withdrawals, Lebanese state deployment and Hezbollah’s disarmament cannot be treated as separate processes indefinitely. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam made that case directly to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington on Monday, calling for the June framework to be implemented through what he described as “reciprocity and gradualism,” with a clear timetable and a credible mechanism to verify compliance by both sides. At the heart of the dispute is a sequencing problem. Lebanon wants Israel to continue withdrawing from territory it occupies in the south as the Lebanese Army deploys and extends state control. Israel argues that further withdrawals should follow measurable progress in dismantling Hezbollah’s military infrastructure. The result is a stalemate in which both sides increasingly point to the other’s incomplete obligations as the reason the process cannot advance. The framework was reached under U.S. mediation in June after months of intensified fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. Its broad logic was relatively simple: Israeli forces would gradually leave occupied areas of southern Lebanon, the Lebanese Army would replace them, Hezbollah’s military presence would be dismantled, and outside parties would help verify implementation. The plan was also designed to create conditions for reconstruction and the return of displaced civilians. But translating that formula into reality has proved far more difficult. The first major experiment involved so-called “pilot zones,” where Israeli troops would withdraw from a limited area and the Lebanese Army would move in. One such handover took place around Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh, but Reuters reported in July that the process required weeks of negotiation and exposed major disagreements over security, Hezbollah weapons and the pace of Israeli withdrawal. Lebanon now wants the model expanded. Salam told Rubio that implementation should produce “practical steps and tangible results on the ground,” leading toward complete Israeli withdrawal, the extension of Lebanese state authority and the monopoly of arms by the state. That formulation is important because Beirut is trying to prevent either side from turning sequencing into a permanent excuse for inaction. If Israel says it will not withdraw until Hezbollah is completely disarmed, and Hezbollah says it will not disarm while Israeli forces remain on Lebanese territory, the framework can effectively freeze indefinitely. Salam is therefore asking Washington to enforce a step-by-step exchange. Israel withdraws from another defined area. The Lebanese Army deploys. Hezbollah infrastructure there is removed. Compliance is verified. Then the process moves to the next area. That is essentially what Lebanon means by reciprocity and gradualism. Washington, however, appears increasingly concerned that Beirut has not delivered enough on Hezbollah. The State Department said Rubio reaffirmed U.S. support for Lebanon but also described implementation of the framework as the “only path to a durable peace,” while emphasizing a sovereign Lebanese state free from the influence of Hezbollah and Iran. The U.S. position therefore overlaps with Lebanon’s on one major principle: weapons should ultimately belong exclusively to the Lebanese state. Where the dispute becomes harder is how quickly that has to happen before Israel is expected to move again. Hanin Ghaddar of the Washington Institute argued that the sequence is currently Lebanon’s responsibility because Israel has already withdrawn from one pilot zone and the Lebanese Army deployed there, while Hezbollah’s disarmament has not advanced sufficiently. “The sequence is now with Lebanon,” she told The National. Lebanon sees the problem differently. Its government argues that asking the state to enforce disarmament while Israeli forces continue occupying Lebanese territory and conducting regular airstrikes makes the process politically and practically harder. Salam has repeatedly said that Lebanon’s two objectives must advance together: ending the Israeli presence and establishing exclusive state control over weapons. The security situation is making that argument more urgent. Israeli airstrikes across southern Lebanon have increased again in recent weeks, while Hezbollah has continued attacks against Israeli troops. The June framework was supposed to move the conflict away from repeated military exchanges. Instead, negotiations have nearly stalled while the battlefield remains active. The absence of an agreed verification system is another major obstacle. Lebanon and Israel agreed in August on a shortlist of countries that could potentially contribute personnel to verify Hezbollah’s disarmament, with the final selection expected to involve the United States. But no fully operational mechanism has yet resolved the central question of who decides whether Hezbollah has actually been removed from an area sufficiently for Israel to withdraw. That matters because without independent verification, both parties can simply reject the other’s claims. Israel can say Hezbollah remains present. Lebanon can say the Army has fulfilled its responsibilities. Neither side has to move. Salam is therefore asking Washington not only for political pressure but for a structure capable of determining when obligations have actually been fulfilled. There is also a reconstruction dimension. The Lebanese government argues that the June framework was never meant to be purely military. Salam told Rubio that it should also support relief, recovery, infrastructure repair and the return of displaced families to southern Lebanon. That connects directly with Lebanon’s broader diplomatic campaign over the past week. At the UN General Assembly, Salam repeatedly called for reconstruction assistance while presenting stronger state authority as part of the same strategy. The logic is that southern Lebanon cannot meaningfully recover while villages remain exposed to strikes, Israeli troops remain on Lebanese land and Hezbollah retains an independent military structure. Security and reconstruction therefore increasingly depend on the same political process. For Washington, the challenge is leverage. The United States is effectively the only actor with substantial influence over both the Lebanese state and Israel. It finances and trains the Lebanese Army, maintains strong ties with Israel and designed the framework now being implemented. If the process is to move beyond the first pilot areas, Washington will likely have to decide how much pressure to apply to each side and in what order. Lebanon’s message this week is that the next phase cannot simply mean more demands on Beirut while Israeli withdrawals remain frozen. Israel’s position is essentially the reverse: further withdrawal without verified Hezbollah disarmament risks recreating the same threat along its northern border. Both concerns explain why the framework has slowed. But they also show why a timetable and verification system have become increasingly important. Without them, the June deal risks becoming another Lebanese ceasefire arrangement that exists on paper while the underlying conflict continues. Lebanon is now asking Washington to prevent exactly that. The objective is straightforward: another Israeli withdrawal, another Lebanese Army deployment, another reduction in Hezbollah’s military presence, and then another step. Whether Washington can force that sequence to function may determine whether the current framework becomes the beginning of a lasting settlement — or simply another pause before the next war.