Academic Paper: The Lebanon-Israel Truce Committee Talks and the Hezbollah Disarmament Deadline
Abstract
The 2024 Lebanon-Israel truce, overseen by a U.S.-brokered committee, aims to address regional stability in the face of persistent tensions between Israel and Hezbollah. As the December 2025 disarmament deadline looms, this paper examines the geopolitical, economic, and political dynamics shaping the truce’s implementation. It evaluates the role of U.S. mediation, challenges to Hezbollah’s disarmament, and the interplay between security and civilian reconciliation. The analysis highlights the complexities of balancing Hezbollah’s political influence in Lebanon, Israel’s security imperatives, and the Lebanese government’s sovereignty. The paper concludes with recommendations for sustainable peace in the region.
- Introduction
The Lebanon-Israel truce, brokered in 2024 with U.S. mediation, represents a critical attempt to end decades of conflict. The truce’s cornerstone is the disarmament of Hezbollah, an Iran-aligned militia embedded in Lebanon’s political and military landscape. As the December 2025 deadline approaches, the truce committee faces mounting challenges in enforcing Hezbollah’s disarmament while addressing humanitarian and economic needs. This paper analyzes the truce’s implementation, focusing on U.S. strategic interests, Hezbollah’s resistance, and the Lebanese government’s balancing act. It argues that durable peace requires a multifaceted approach addressing security, political sovereignty, and economic stability.
- Historical Context and the 2024 Truce
Lebanon and Israel have been in an official state of war since 1975, with conflicts exacerbated by Hezbollah’s rise as a powerful proxy of Iran. The 2006 Lebanon War underscored the fragility of regional peace, with Hezbollah and Israel engaging in repeated clashes. The 2024 truce marked a shift, establishing a committee to monitor compliance in exchange for Hezbollah’s disarmament. This agreement was framed as a precursor to broader U.S. peace initiatives under President Donald Trump, who emphasized Middle Eastern stability as a core priority.
The truce’s terms, however, are contentious. Israel insists on unilateral Hezbollah disarmament, while Lebanon, citing sovereignty, demands a phased process with international oversight. The December 2025 deadline introduces a critical juncture: failure could reignite conflict, particularly as Israeli airstrikes continue amid Hezbollah’s alleged military rebuild.
- Structure and Function of the Truce Committee
The committee, operating under U.S. stewardship, has expanded beyond security monitoring to include civilian and economic issues. Its 15th meeting in Naqoura, Lebanon, highlighted discussions on displaced person returns, reconstruction, and economic cooperation. This expansion reflects U.S. efforts to align the truce with broader peace-building frameworks, such as those proposed by the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
The committee’s dual focus on security and socio-economic reconciliation mirrors frameworks from conflict resolution theory, particularly John Paul Lederach’s emphasis on “interpersonal and structural peace.” By addressing livelihoods and displacement, the committee aims to reduce incentives for violence. However, divergent goals—such as Israel’s insistence on Hezbollah’s disbandment versus Lebanon’s emphasis on sovereign solutions—remain unresolved.
- Hezbollah Disarmament: Challenges and International Pressure
Hezbollah’s disarmament is the truce’s linchpin, yet its execution is fraught with obstacles. Embedded within Lebanon’s political system, Hezbollah enjoys significant popular support as a resistance movement against Israeli occupation and regional hegemonies. The Lebanese government, weakened by economic collapse and internal divisions, lacks the capacity or political will to enforce disarmament unilaterally.
Israel, meanwhile, has continued airstrikes, accusing Hezbollah of rebuilding military capabilities. The December 2025 deadline amplifies risks, as Israel has warned of “acting as necessary” if Hezbollah remains armed. This dynamic mirrors the security dilemma: Hezbollah views arms as a deterrent against Israeli aggression, while Israel perceives armed Hezbollah as an existential threat.
International actors, particularly Iran, further complicate the situation. Iran’s support for Hezbollah is a tool of regional influence, making external pressure ineffective. The U.S., instead, has leveraged the truce to secure geopolitical gains, aligning with broader Middle Eastern peace deals like the Abraham Accords.
- U.S. Mediation and Regional Politics
The U.S. has positioned itself as the truce’s primary mediator, leveraging its alliance with Israel and diplomatic ties to Lebanon. President Trump’s agenda to normalize relations across the Middle East underscores the U.S. interest in regional stability. However, U.S. credibility is undermined by inconsistent messaging and limited leverage over Lebanon’s sectarian government.
The truce committee’s extension into civilian and economic domains reflects U.S. strategies to create “confidence-building measures.” By prioritizing displaced individuals’ returns and economic reconstruction, the U.S. aims to foster interdependence, reducing incentives for conflict. Yet, U.S. policies remain transactional, often neglecting Lebanon’s complex political realities.
- Civilian and Economic Reconciliation Efforts
Civilian and economic issues are critical to the truce’s long-term success. Over half a million Lebanese remain displaced from border areas, with inadequate housing and infrastructure. The December 2025 committee meeting emphasized safe returns, echoing post-conflict reconstruction models such as those in Bosnia and Rwanda.
Economic reconstruction, however, requires international aid and domestic reforms. Lebanon’s financial collapse complicates this, as does corruption and political dysfunction. The U.S. Embassy has stated that economic progress is “essential to reinforcing security gains,” yet financial support remains conditional on political reforms—unrealistic demands given Lebanon’s current governance.
- The Role of the Lebanese Army
The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are central to the truce’s implementation. The 2024 agreement positions the LAF as the sole security provider south of the Litani River, a role historically undermined by Hezbollah’s military dominance. Committee discussions in December 2025 highlighted the need to deploy the LAF into Hezbollah’s stronghold, a contentious step requiring political consensus in Beirut.
Strengthening the LAF aligns with UN Resolutions 1701 (2006) and 1559 (2004), which call for Hezbollah’s disarmament and Lebanon’s sovereignty. However, the LAF’s capacity is strained by resource limitations and Hezbollah’s resistance. Success hinges on Lebanese unity, a rarity in a nation plagued by factionalism.
- Implications of the Disarmament Deadline
The December 2025 deadline poses existential risks. If Hezbollah remains armed, Israel may preemptively strike, potentially provoking another war. Conversely, a disarmed Hezbollah could destabilize Lebanon’s regional alliances and erode its political legitimacy. The Lebanese government, caught between these extremes, faces a domestic backlash if perceived as capitulating to Israel.
The U.S., while invested in the truce, lacks the coercive power to enforce disarmament without Lebanese buy-in. Regional actors, including Iran and Syria, may also intervene to preserve Hezbollah’s role as a proxy for Iran’s influence.
- Conclusion and Recommendations
The Lebanon-Israel truce reflects the complex interplay of security, sovereignty, and regional politics. As the December 2025 deadline approaches, the following recommendations are proposed:
Extended Negotiations: The disarmament deadline should be extended to allow for gradual, nationally owned solutions rather than unilateral enforcement.
International Guarantees: A multinational peacekeeping force, under UN auspices, could oversee Hezbollah’s disarmament while protecting Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Economic Investment: International donors should prioritize reconstruction and livelihood programs to address root causes of conflict.
Inclusive Governance: Lebanon must foster political consensus on Hezbollah’s role, balancing national security with regional alliances.
Ultimately, the truce’s success depends on recognizing that Hezbollah’s disarmament is not merely a military issue but a political process requiring compromise on all sides. Without durable solutions, the Middle East risks reverting to the cycles of violence that have defined its recent history.
References
Reuters. (2025, December 19). Lebanon-Israel truce committee talks widen as Hezbollah disarmament deadline nears.
U.S. Embassy in Beirut. (2025). Statement on Lebanon-Israel Truce Committee Meetings.
Lederach, J. P. (2005). The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace.
UN Security Council. (2004). Resolution 1559.
Wilson Center. (2025). Middle East Peace Processes: Challenges and Prospects.
This paper synthesizes primary and secondary sources to provide a nuanced analysis of the truce’s challenges, emphasizing the need for holistic, politically sensitive solutions to the Lebanon-Israel conflict.