Lebanon has rejected an Israeli request, backed by the United States, for direct security and intelligence cooperation over Hezbollah weapons in southern Lebanon and operations to remove them, Lebanese diplomatic sources told Erem News, insisting that the Lebanese State must retain exclusive control of the process.

According to the sources, Beirut told U.S. and Israeli officials that the weapons issue must be handled under the authority of the Lebanese State and through established mechanisms for monitoring the ceasefire, with no direct Israeli involvement in army operations on the ground.

The position underscores a disagreement over how security arrangements in southern Lebanon should be implemented, even as Washington continues efforts to advance negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv.

Lebanon is also insisting that Hezbollah's disarmament be linked to an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and to arrangements that would prevent a renewed outbreak of hostilities, the sources said.

The issue emerged during a meeting between Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Nada Hamadeh Mouawad and her Israeli counterpart, Yechiel Leiter, at the U.S. State Department, attended by American officials.

The meeting was part of efforts to advance negotiations on security arrangements and the implementation of a ceasefire agreement. The U.S. State Department confirmed the meeting and reiterated its commitment to the trilateral negotiating framework.

The Lebanese side stressed that any exchange of information concerning disarmament operations in the south should take place through established mechanisms, particularly the Lebanon Military Coordination Group, headed by U.S. General Joseph Clearfield, rather than through direct security cooperation between Lebanon and Israel, the sources said.

The meeting followed the postponement of a round of negotiations that had been scheduled to take place in Rome in September until October, amid continued military tensions in southern Lebanon and disagreements over the implementation of security understandings between the two countries.

A Lebanese diplomat familiar with the Washington meeting told Erem News that Beirut remained committed to the framework agreement as the route toward a security understanding and, eventually, a peace agreement.

But that would require the Lebanese State to restore its sovereignty over the south, the army to deploy throughout the area and Hezbollah to be disarmed, in parallel with the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the diplomat said.

Lebanon does not oppose sharing information with Washington about army operations, the diplomat added, provided that the process is supervised by U.S. military experts and does not involve Israel directly.

“Beirut sees no alternative to the framework agreement” for achieving a lasting settlement, the diplomat said, but rejects direct security and intelligence cooperation with Israel while Israeli forces remain on Lebanese territory.

The diplomat said security commitments should be accompanied by concrete Israeli steps, foremost among them a withdrawal from Lebanese territory. Such a withdrawal would allow the Lebanese army to complete its deployment and extend state authority across the south, he said.

The Lebanese position comes as President Joseph Aoun continues to push for a security agreement with Israel that would end the longstanding state of hostility and avert another war.

In comments to Agence France-Presse published on September 16, Aoun said a security agreement could pave the way for a future peace deal, but tied that prospect to the withdrawal of Israeli forces. He also reiterated the Lebanese state's commitment to disarming Hezbollah while avoiding an internal confrontation.

Calls for withdrawal and end to attacks

Retired Brig. Gen. Saeed Qozah, a strategic affairs expert, said any security agreement aimed at ending the state of hostility between Lebanon and Israel should be based, at a minimum, on the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

Such an agreement should include the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, an end to attacks and the return of prisoners, Qozah told Erem News.

Those steps could create the conditions for a subsequent peace agreement, he said, provided they were accompanied by placing all weapons under the authority of the Lebanese state and disarming all armed groups outside state control, whether linked to Iran or Palestinian factions.

Qozah said previous experience had shown, in his view, that military operations launched from Lebanese territory without a decision by the state had repeatedly dragged Lebanon into confrontations with Israel.

He said a settlement would require guarantees for an Israeli military withdrawal, the return of Lebanese prisoners and an end to attacks on Lebanon, in exchange for preventing military operations from Lebanese territory against Israel.

He also pointed to the Lebanese Constitution and the Taif Agreement as a basis for future security arrangements, particularly provisions concerning the dissolution of militias and the extension of state authority throughout the country.

Aoun seeks international backing for army

Lebanese political researcher Michel Chammasi said Aoun was seeking international support for the Lebanese army so it could strengthen its deployment in the south and assert state authority there.

Chammasi told Erem News that Hezbollah's continued possession of weapons was one of the main obstacles to reaching an agreement with Israel.

The demand for Hezbollah's disarmament is not limited to Israel, he said, but is also rooted in decisions taken by the Lebanese government, including a Cabinet decision on Aug. 7, 2025, that endorsed the objectives of a U.S. proposal aimed at placing all weapons under state control.

Implementation of that decision continues to face obstacles amid an unresolved dispute over Hezbollah's weapons and how they should be addressed, Chammasi said.

He also said he did not expect a limited security agreement to definitively end the conflict, arguing that Israel was not moving toward a formula based solely on the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

Instead, Chammasi said Israel was seeking a broader settlement that would eliminate military threats emanating from Lebanon and prevent a renewed outbreak of hostilities.

Such an arrangement, he said, would seek to establish lasting peace rather than another temporary security understanding.