A proposed U.S. framework submitted to Lebanese officials sets out detailed conditions aimed at resolving the country’s longstanding issue of illegal weapons, with a central provision calling for the complete transfer of arms to the Lebanese Army, sources familiar with the document told Nidaa Al-Watan.

According to the sources, the American paper contains extensive clauses, particularly with regard to the disarmament of non-state actors. It calls for the surrender of all weapons, including light arms and hand grenades, to the Lebanese army.

While the proposal outlines a significant increase in military aid to Lebanon, from the current $150 million to a potential $500 million, the sources stressed that the document avoids firm U.S. commitments. Instead, it uses non-binding language such as “seek” in reference to boosting financial support for the Lebanese Armed Forces, making it clear that any increase in funding remains discretionary.

The plan envisions the Lebanese Army as the sole legitimate security force responsible for defending national borders and maintaining internal order.

The American document is structured into three main chapters, each tackling a different dimension of the proposed resolution. Chapter Three focuses on leveraging Arab and international resources to support Lebanon, not only through economic aid but also by facilitating reconstruction projects. The plan aims to revitalize the country’s deteriorating infrastructure and resuscitate an economy crippled by years of political dysfunction and financial collapse.

In terms of implementation, the agreement is divided into two phases. The first spans 90 days and would focus on the systematic handover of all weapons to the Lebanese Army. The second phase would last 30 days, during which Lebanon would be placed on a “solution track” that aligns the country with international stabilization efforts and ensures that the new security arrangement is acknowledged by the global community.

Diplomatic sources familiar with the matter warned that any delay in implementing the U.S. proposal could lead to grave consequences. Chief among them is the risk of Washington disengaging from Lebanon altogether, a move that would severely undermine both political backing and financial support. The second, and potentially more dangerous, outcome would be to “give Israel a free hand,” allowing it greater latitude to carry out military operations in Lebanon or along its southern border.