The agreement links the restoration of full Lebanese state authority in southern Lebanon to the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups, including Hezbollah. Analysts say the arrangement places obligations on Lebanon that its government and military are unable to enforce while offering no guaranteed timetable for an Israeli withdrawal.

Hezbollah has rejected any move to disarm, and successive Lebanese governments have acknowledged the limits of their authority over the group, which remains the country’s most powerful armed faction. Analysts say this leaves Israel with grounds to maintain an open-ended military presence in southern Lebanon.

“This is not an agreement, it is an imposed settlement,” a senior Lebanese politician, who declined to be identified, told Reuters. The official said the Lebanese army lacks both the structure and capability to disarm Hezbollah and that attempting to do so would threaten Lebanon’s fragile sectarian balance.

Michael Young, a Beirut-based political analyst, said the framework placed the burden almost entirely on Lebanon while allowing Israel to remain in southern Lebanon indefinitely if the disarmament condition is not met.

Fawaz Gerges, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, described the agreement as “born dead,” arguing that it depends on a condition that is politically and practically unattainable. He said Israel had already established a security buffer zone in southern Lebanon and that the agreement risked giving that presence long-term diplomatic legitimacy.

The framework forms part of wider diplomatic efforts linked to easing regional tensions following the recent conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States. Analysts said separating the Lebanon file from broader regional negotiations has provided Israel with greater flexibility in maintaining its military posture along the border.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has presented the agreement as a step toward broader regional stability while maintaining that Israeli forces will remain in the designated security zone until Hezbollah and other armed groups are disarmed and no longer pose a threat to northern Israel.

Three senior Israeli officials told Reuters that Israel has limited confidence in Lebanon’s ability to disarm Hezbollah but views the agreement as an important diplomatic framework for future normalization efforts with its northern neighbor.

The conflict in Lebanon has displaced around one million people and resulted in approximately 4,000 deaths during Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah, according to figures cited in the report.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun welcomed the agreement as an initial step toward restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty and facilitating the return of displaced residents. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri rejected the framework, describing it as an imposed arrangement that failed to safeguard Lebanon’s interests.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem declared the agreement “null and void” and said the group would continue resisting Israeli forces until they withdraw from Lebanese territory. Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah warned that efforts to implement the deal through forced disarmament could trigger internal conflict.

Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and regional analyst, said Hezbollah’s dismantlement was unlikely under current conditions and predicted that Israel would continue its military deployment while Hezbollah retained its weapons.

He argued that a narrower agreement focused on Hezbollah’s withdrawal north of the Litani River, combined with an expanded Lebanese army deployment, would have had greater prospects for implementation.

Mohammed Obeid, an analyst close to Hezbollah, also questioned the viability of the agreement, saying its provisions carried the potential to destabilize Lebanon by making state action against Hezbollah a prerequisite for implementation.