Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has engaged in a dialogue with Hezbollah over its arms. The Lebanese state and the president face a challenge. They need to disarm Hezbollah without clashing with the group and they need to be able to drive Israel out of Lebanon using diplomatic means.

Israel is pretending it is enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1701. It strikes Lebanon almost daily, claiming to be targeting arms depots. It has deployed troops in five locations in the south and says they will remain there indefinitely. Israel is pretending that the Lebanese state and its army are too weak to handle the disarmament of Hezbollah. However, this behavior emasculates the Lebanese state and undermines its position when negotiating with Hezbollah.

The US has a dubious position in all this. It says that it wants a strong Lebanese state. Of course, only a strong Lebanese state can offer a viable alternative to Hezbollah. However, Washington is not behaving accordingly. Lebanon cannot pressure Israel. Israel has shown its disdain for international law. Therefore, any complaints Lebanon files with the UN will fall on deaf ears. The only actor that can pressure Israel is its patron: the US.

Lebanon cannot resort to armed resistance to fight Israel. The only way it can deal with Israel is through diplomacy. However, diplomacy is ineffective unless it is coupled with the power of coercion and with consequences for noncompliance. The US can strengthen the position of the Lebanese state with Hezbollah if it pressures Israel.

If the Lebanese state shows it is capable of defending Lebanon and has effective diplomacy, then it will be in a stronger position with regard to Hezbollah and the entire narrative of the group will become obsolete. However, the US is exercising pressure solely on Lebanon, while giving Israel a free hand in the country. Israel wants to have freedom of operation in Lebanon and in the whole neighborhood. It has attacked Syria without a just cause. Israel is unbridled and the US is boosting its confidence and arrogance.

Hezbollah, targeted by Israel, feels very insecure. Today, the group’s main aim is to secure its survival. Less than a year ago, it had full control of the country, but now its future as a political group is in doubt. Hezbollah has agreed to abide by Resolution 1701. It has agreed to disarm. However, precedents show that the stories of those who disarmed in the past did not have a happy ending.

Muammar Qaddafi was bombed after he gave away his chemical weapons stock. Iraq was invaded after Saddam Hussein destroyed his Somoud missiles. In Lebanon, the Lebanese Forces faced a grim outcome after they disarmed at the end of the civil war. Their leader, Samir Geagea, was imprisoned on bogus charges. Hezbollah definitely does not want to face the same fate as the Lebanese Forces.

Hezbollah is facing a dilemma. Its weapons are the reason it, and Lebanon, is being targeted. However, they are also its only negotiating card. If it gives them up, it has nothing, no leverage. The group’s insecurity is understandable. However, the fate of the country cannot be jeopardized just to serve the interest of one group.

Israel has been targeting Hezbollah’s leaders. On the other hand, the group’s transgressions throughout the years — and the fact it brought war to Lebanon because of its support front for Gaza — have created a lot of anger among the rest of the Lebanese. Hence, the group faces both internal and external threats.

Despite the fact it is weakened, Hezbollah still has support among the Shiite community. The group can portray any effort to contain it as an effort to corner this community. This, of course, can lead to internal unrest, especially since the Shiites have suffered the bulk of the destruction wreaked by Israel. Though Hezbollah does not have enough firepower to fight a war with Israel, it has enough arms and grassroots support to initiate a civil war. So, it has to be dealt with intelligently.

Israel is saying it is in Lebanon because Hezbollah is not fully disarmed, while the group is saying there is no guarantee Israel will stop its aggression if it were to disarm. We are in a chicken and egg situation. Which should come first? The best way to solve this conundrum would be a step-by-step approach. This would allow Hezbollah to save face and transition into a political party, without the appearance of having suffered a total defeat by Israel.

The US is demanding the group’s disarmament “as soon as possible.” This should go hand in hand with a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. A timetable for both should be put on the table. The Lebanese military should immediately fill the positions vacated by the Israeli military. Tying Hezbollah’s disarmament to the Israeli withdrawal would compel the group to comply. How could it refuse to disarm if it would directly lead to the liberation of Lebanon from Israel?

Aoun is right to follow the path of dialogue with Hezbollah to solve the issue of its arms. However, to make sure he can accomplish his task successfully and without any internal clashes, the US should pressure Israel to offer a timetable for its withdrawal from Lebanon that is linked to the disarmament of the group.