Originally published in JNS.
Tehran is Pressing Hezbollah Not to Surrender to US Demands
In the aftermath of the direct war between Israel and Iran, the United States is attempting to actively leverage the perceived weakness of Hezbollah’s patron to push for a tangible disarmament process in Lebanon.
The American framework, described by international media reports as a “step-for-step” plan, links a potential Israeli withdrawal from disputed border points to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) taking control of Hezbollah’s remaining arsenal of illegal weapons.
This diplomatic initiative is unfolding in a new regional environment. The degradation of Iran’s military capabilities, which followed the massive degradation of Hezbollah’s capabilities by Israel in September and October 2024, has emboldened local political actors in Lebanon who have long opposed Hezbollah’s state-within-a-state.
The Lebanese government, led by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, is publicly embracing the language of state sovereignty and a monopoly on force.
However, so far, it has mainly been Israeli firepower rather than internal Lebanese pressure or diplomatic pushes that have prevented Hezbollah from rebuilding its capabilities.
Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, a Middle East specialist at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs and a former deputy head for assessment of Israeli Military Intelligence, expressed deep skepticism about the prospect of the Lebanese army taking substantial action.
“There is an Arabic proverb that is fitting for the Lebanese reality: The words ‘if only’ never built a house, or as we say in Hebrew, between saying and doing is a long way,” Neriah told JNS.
“One should not expect aggressive action by the Lebanese army against Hezbollah,” he said. “It is clear to everyone that Hezbollah is doing what it can to hide its weapons and is aware of the criticism rising against it. It is totally subject to Tehran’s decision, and Tehran is asking it not to surrender to American demands. Handing over its weapons cancels Hezbollah’s role without giving it a foothold in the Lebanese political system.”
According to Neriah, the only variable that can genuinely alter the equation is sustained Israeli military pressure. “The more Hezbollah is beaten, the more the voices against it in Lebanon grow,” he argued. “It still does not seem possible to bend it, although Israeli military pressure will continue to restrain it.”
This assessment appears to be validated by Hezbollah’s public posture. On July 1, a Hezbollah official, Muhammad Qamati, explicitly rejected any “step-for-step” plan, insisting that Israel must first fully implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for Hezbollah’s disarmament south of the Litani River after the 2006 Second Lebanon War—a resolution the terror group itself has violated for nearly two decades.
Col. (res.) Barak Ben-Zur, a former Military Intelligence officer and ex-head of the Research Unit in the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), told JNS that the key to a long-term solution lies in Damascus rather than Beirut, via a comprehensive political-security settlement with the new Syrian regime under Ahmad al-Sharaa.
“The two steps mentioned regarding dealing with Hezbollah’s military capability (a phased and gradual takeover by the Lebanese army and targeted standoff fire operations by the IDF) are steps at the operational-tactical level,” Ben-Zur argued.
“It stands to reason that more important than this is action at the systemic level, striving for a political-security arrangement, first and foremost with the new Syrian leadership. Reaching an agreement, even if it is a ‘non-aggression pact’ that includes political aspects, economic measures, and security cooperation, is a step that holds decisive significance regarding Hezbollah’s rehabilitation,” he added.
According to Ben-Zur, such an agreement would place a major obstacle in the path of Hezbollah’s return to its former status as an armed Iranian-backed entity that dictates Lebanon’s policy and threatens Israel. “Establishing a relationship of the type described above between Syria and Israel will make it possible to nullify the Iranian influence and its translation into practical steps on the ground,” he said.
He noted that the dismantling of Iran’s forward intelligence and air defense network in Syria and Lebanon, which had been able to supply early alerts to the Iranian air-defense network and supplied Iran with ongoing intelligence on Israeli air and ground activity, was one of the crucial enablers for the surprise Israeli attack on Iran on the morning of June 13.
An Israeli-Syrian settlement, backed by the U.S. and linked to Saudi investments for the rapid reconstruction of Syria, would, according to Ben-Zur, cement this new reality. Ben-Zur suggested that such a deal would require Israeli flexibility on the Palestinian issue, but that the groundwork, including drafts and letters of intent from past negotiations with Syria, already exists.
However, many in Israel remain deeply suspicious of the al-Sharaa regime in Syria. A consensus view within the Israeli establishment is that the dismantling of most of Hezbollah’s capabilities in Lebanon was a critical step towards taking on the head of the radical jihadist axis itself, Iran.
“I think one of the biggest achievements we had after the disaster of Oct. 7 is dismantling Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran invested billions of dollars over the years in Hezbollah for this exact reason,” IDF Spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin stated on June 30 during a webinar hosted by the Washington D.C.-based Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
“They [the Iranians] were counting on that. It was supposed to be the first layer of defense for Iran. … They didn’t react,” said Defrin.