Lebanon’s Moment of Reckoning

To avoid the worst-case outcome, Lebanon should demonstrate its resolve in disarming Hezbollah and engaging with Israel. Israel, for its part, must resist the temptation to double down on its military offensive and ultimately should withdraw from Lebanon. And most significantly, the United States must maintain the diplomatic pressure for progress and provide the necessary aid to Lebanon.

The start of Lebanon’s latest saga dates to March 2, when Hezbollah—the Lebanese Shiite militant group and proxy of Iran—once again dragged the country into conflict with Israel. The group launched rockets and drones on northern Israel in solidarity with Iran, following the U.S. and Israeli military strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Israel responded with a massive offensive, kicking off a six-week war that killed more than 2,000 people in Lebanon and displaced more than 1 million, 20 percent of the population. Israeli forces also undertook a ground incursion and now occupy a swath of southern Lebanon estimated to comprise 10 percent of the country. Hezbollah also continued to attack Israel, at one point striking Israel with a barrage of roughly 200 missiles and drones.

The conflict reached its brutal crescendo with Israel’s April 8 attack on Lebanon, 100 strikes within 10 minutes that killed more than 300 people across central Beirut. The attack occurred after the April 7 cease-fire between the United States and Iran, with Israel insisting that the agreement did not include Lebanon and Iran insisting that it did. Ultimately, Washington stepped in to broker the first public, direct talks between Israel and Lebanon in decades, paving the way for the current ceasefire.

Yet despite the talks, the situation remains fraught. Lebanon’s 1 million displaced are predominantly Shiite and have been confined to smaller areas of the country, as other confessional communities are unwilling to host them and sectarian tensions increase. Beirut’s population is estimated to have increased by 50 percent from the displacement, with the majority living in West Beirut, according to a senior Lebanese official speaking at a private roundtable. The ripple effects have inevitably exacerbated Lebanon’s economic crisis. The economy minister estimates that the country experienced a 5 percent to 7 percent decline in GDP in just five weeks; should the war resume, deepening economic contraction would be catastrophic.

With all of this, the Lebanese government is demonstrating tenacious resolve to address the country’s multifaceted challenges. It is engaging the Lebanese people directly, building support for the difficult way forward. The president delivered a masterful speech on April 17 that conveyed his vision for peace and assumed responsibility for leading Lebanon into a new era. He made an impassioned call for national unity, embracing all Lebanese, and framed negotiations with Israel not as a concession but as an opening to transform the cease-fire into a lasting agreement that would benefit Lebanon. Without mentioning Hezbollah by name, he rejected its nihilism and dangerous adventurism while asserting the Lebanese government’s renewal of sovereign authority. He also called for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and an end to Israeli aggression.

But a rousing speech is far from enough. The Lebanese government must now undertake bold action. Immediately after Hezbollah’s March 2 attack on Israel, the cabinet announced a ban on all Hezbollah military activity; notably, the announcement drew the support of Nabih Berri, the speaker of the Lebanese parliament and leader of the Shiite Amal Movement party, Hezbollah’s putative ally. The Lebanese government subsequently announced measures designed to reduce Iranian influence in Lebanon, including declaring the Iranian ambassador persona non grata. (The Iranian ambassador has yet to abide by the order.)

Now, the Lebanese government must take a more decisive step to demonstrate its commitment to disarming Hezbollah. Implementing a proposal to disarm Hezbollah in the Beirut governorate—which notably excludes Dahiyeh, the Hezbollah-dominated southern suburb—would send an important symbolic message. It would assert the government’s authority in its capital city without provoking sectarian unrest. Given the large number of Shiites now displaced in Beirut, it would also insulate them from accusations of harboring armed Hezbollah militants in their midst. This signal, in turn, would hopefully help other communities be more receptive to displaced Shiite  and raise the political cost for further Israeli strikes in these  areas.

Israel also faces its own set of challenges. The current cease-fire gives Israel’s leaders even wider latitude to conduct airstrikes than the previous 2024 agreement, explicitly stating that they can respond to planned or imminent attacks. The cease-fire does not address Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, and Israeli leaders continue to insist that there will be no withdrawal.

Moreover, prior to the cease-fire, Israel appeared to be expanding its focus beyond Hezbollah to target Lebanon’s Shiite community more broadly—a dangerous escalation. Israeli military leaders have reportedly pressured other confessional communities in southern Lebanon not to provide refuge to displaced Shiites—in essence, emptying Lebanon’s south of its once-predominant Shiite population. An Israeli strike that hit an Amal-linked paramedic team also signals a potential expansion of Israeli targeting beyond Hezbollah.

Yet even as the cease-fire gives the Israeli government considerable latitude, it remains politically unpopular within Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been criticized for acquiescing to Trump administration pressure. The result is that Israel is likely to miss a rare valuable opportunity to improve its long-term security.

The talks could either develop into real peace negotiations that strengthen Lebanese sovereignty or, if they fail, give way to a renewed war that will ultimately strengthen Hezbollah. Israel must decide if it wants to live in a state of perpetual war with Lebanon or find a way to live alongside a Lebanese state with a monopoly on arms and sovereign authority throughout the country.

To move toward peace, Israel should exercise restraint, respecting and ultimately extending the cease-fire beyond 10 days. It should also refrain from calling its position in Lebanon a “yellow line.” This term, borrowing from Gaza, signals an intent to make the occupation of southern Lebanon permanent. Finally, Israel should stop expanding its conflict beyond Hezbollah to the entire Shiite population, another step that would make any meaningful peace impossible.

Based on its recent policy choices, however, Israel appears unlikely to exercise this strategic restraint on its own. This leaves the United States as the most important interlocutor. Only with sustained pressure from Washington—on Lebanon to move boldly toward disarmament and on Israel not to expand the war—can a lasting solution to the Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conundrum emerge. The Trump administration must remain focused on two core objectives: Hezbollah’s disarmament and Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanon. Both of these are essential for an outcome that bolsters the security of both parties.

What’s more, Washington should help make it possible for the Lebanese government to succeed. This means that rather than insisting that Hezbollah be fully disarmed before any aid goes to Lebanon, Washington should encourage allies, Gulf partners, and multilateral institutions to step up now. Disarmament efforts over the past year have shown the importance of immediately filling the vacuums created when Hezbollah withdraws. When the Lebanese government does not step in to assist needy Lebanese, Hezbollah remains the de facto community’s service provider. The way to do this is by supporting Lebanese government’s early recovery efforts, thereby establishing the state as the key authority.

Last week, the World Bank—a key player in Lebanon’s recovery programming—signed  a $200 million agreement to enhance Lebanon’s social safety net and bolster the Lebanese government’s capacity to support vulnerable populations. This is an excellent move. The United States should also support International Monetary Fund efforts to fast-track financing for budget support and humanitarian response. Finally, the United States should continue providing assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces, bolstering the military’s capacity to disarm Hezbollah.

Only through Lebanese courage and resolve, Israeli restraint, and sustained U.S. diplomacy can Lebanon take advantage of the moment. If it succeeds, it will give both Lebanese and Israelis the chance for a more secure and prosperous future.

If it fails, however, Lebanon will enter a dark phase of instability, both internally and in its relations with Israel. A resumption of conflict with Israel will torpedo any prospects for economic recovery. On the contrary, Lebanon could witness a further GDP contraction of 10 percent to 12 percent, putting the country into a deep recession, while the Iran war’s rippling impacts will likely lead to higher inflation and further impoverishment. Desperation, in turn, will stoke sectarian tensions as more people fight over scarcer resources, and animosity toward the Shiite community likely will deepen.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah will continue to gain traction, particularly should the Shiite community feel increasingly besieged. With the state too weak or unwilling to help, the community would likely once again turn to Hezbollah for protection. Continued Israeli occupation in the south will further strengthen Hezbollah’s resistance narrative and influence over the Lebanese government.

The result, in short, would be exactly what Israel is fighting to avoid. Let’s hope that the cease-fire provides an opportunity for all parties to choose a wiser course.