The Lebanese president is trying to turn action against Hezbollah’s arsenal into leverage for American pressure on Israel, placing Washington at the centre of a difficult disarmament bargain.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun is expected to present President Donald Trump with a written proposal for dismantling Hezbollah’s arsenal, while asking Washington to secure an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
The plan, reported by Reuters on 19 July, would place the United States directly inside one of Lebanon’s most sensitive security questions: how to reduce Hezbollah’s military power without triggering a domestic rupture or another round of conflict with Israel.
The proposal follows a June understanding under which Lebanon committed to putting weapons under state authority and Israel was expected to pull back from positions it still holds after its latest campaign against Hezbollah. The gap between those two tracks is now the problem. Beirut wants Israeli withdrawal and an end to strikes; Washington and Israel want credible movement against Hezbollah’s independent arsenal.
Aoun’s strategy appears to be a sequencing bargain. Lebanon would show a concrete plan for state control over arms, while seeking US pressure on Israel to withdraw from remaining positions and halt operations. The approach reflects Beirut’s limited leverage. The Lebanese state cannot easily impose disarmament on Hezbollah without external guarantees, but it also cannot restore sovereignty while another state retains military positions on Lebanese territory.
The risk is that each side waits for the other. Israel is unlikely to withdraw if it believes Hezbollah can rapidly reoccupy border areas or rebuild military infrastructure. Hezbollah is unlikely to accept disarmament if it believes Israel will continue strikes or occupation. The Lebanese state sits between them, weakened by financial collapse, political division and limited military capacity.
For Aoun, the written proposal matters because it shifts the discussion from general diplomacy to a testable document. A vague pledge to address weapons would be easy to dismiss. A plan can be examined for timelines, command authority, monitoring arrangements, incentives and consequences for non-compliance.
For Trump, the meeting offers a chance to claim movement on a conflict that links Israeli security, Iranian influence and regional stability. It also carries risk. If Washington endorses a plan that Lebanon cannot implement, the United States may be drawn into another failed security process. If it pushes Israel too hard without credible guarantees, it risks a dispute with a close ally.
For Europe, the stakes are direct. Lebanon’s instability has repeatedly produced displacement, financial stress and diplomatic spillover. A renewed conflict would affect migration pressures, humanitarian needs and the security environment in the eastern Mediterranean. EU states also have troops in UNIFIL, making escalation in southern Lebanon a European concern as well as a regional one.
EU Global has recently examined how Trump’s ceasefire diplomacy left the Hezbollah question unresolved. Aoun’s written proposal is a concrete development because it moves the dispute from post-conflict rhetoric towards a possible implementation test: who gives up what, who verifies it and who guarantees the result.
The Hezbollah question cannot be separated from Iran. The group is both a Lebanese political-military actor and a central part of Tehran’s regional network. Any disarmament plan will therefore be read in Tehran as a test of Iranian influence after months of pressure on its allies.
The likely obstacle is enforcement. Lebanon can write a plan, but implementation would require security-sector capacity, political consent and external guarantees. Hezbollah’s arsenal has survived previous UN resolutions, domestic dialogues and international pressure because the Lebanese state has lacked both monopoly power and a stable national consensus.
Aoun’s visit to Washington is therefore not ceremonial. It is an attempt to exchange two difficult concessions: Lebanese action against Hezbollah’s weapons and US-backed pressure for Israeli withdrawal. Whether either side can deliver will determine whether the proposal becomes a diplomatic opening or another document in Lebanon’s unresolved security file.
The Lebanese Armed Forces would be central to any credible plan, but their capacity is limited by funding, equipment and domestic politics. If the army is asked to expand control in the south, it will need support that does not make it appear to be executing an externally imposed agenda. That is the narrow line Aoun is trying to walk in Washington.
