Lebanon’s recent response to a US proposal aimed at improving the security and well-being of both Lebanese and Israeli citizens has raised cautious optimism in diplomatic circles. Contrary to expectations, meetings between US envoy Ambassador Tom Barrack and Lebanese leaders—including President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and Speaker Nabih Berri—were described as constructive and marked by pragmatism as opposed to rigid red lines.

This in itself is encouraging, but any optimism must be tempered. Time is short and a durable agreement depends on bold and decisive steps – chief among them Hezbollah’s disarmament and the withdrawal of Israel military forces from Lebanon.

The American proposal, reportedly acceptable in broad strokes to the Lebanese leadership, represents an opening. But in the Middle East, the devil is always in the details. The US and Lebanon must now move swiftly into substantive arrangements - choreographed with strict enforcement of security guarantees and reform benchmarks. Crucially, Ambassador Barrack has made it clear that no agreement will hold unless Hezbollah is reined in.

Lebanon’s proposal outlines key steps: a cessation of hostilities by all parties, the disarmament of all illegal weapons (with specific reference to Hezbollah’s arsenal), formal border demarcation with Syria and Israel, Israel’s withdrawal, and the full assertion of the Lebanese Armed Forces’ (LAF) authority across the country.

While these steps form the foundation of a viable agreement, they must be reinforced by additional considerations that will ensure the long term viability of any agreement. First among these is the role of the LAF, Lebanon’s most trusted and capable national institution. A sustainable deal depends on its operational empowerment to control borders and disarm militias. The LAF has shown the will to take action in the south. Now, it must be backed by the political mandate of Lebanon’s leaders—and international support—to do so across all of Lebanon.

The United States, as the LAF’s largest donor, must reaffirm its commitment to the institution. As the US Congress prepares to debate its FY2026 appropriations for supporting the LAF in the coming weeks, Lebanon’s leaders must act with urgency. Without a credible show of will, both military and diplomatic backing may evaporate, leaving Lebanon dangerously exposed.

Hezbollah’s weapons cannot be deferred to a later phase. They are central to the American position and non-compliance will jeopardize any deal. And while some argue that Lebanon must achieve security before pursuing financial and institutional reforms, in truth, the two are inseparable. No agreement will hold without a robust domestic reform effort that delivers visible change to the Lebanese—starting with access to their bank accounts, severely restricted during to the ongoing economic crisis, and a transparent banking, judicial and regulatory framework.

Southern Lebanon, battered by the most recent conflict, continues to pay the heaviest price. Many residents have become increasingly dependent on Hezbollah and its resources, not by choice, but by necessity. These communities must be reassured that the Lebanese state - backed by the US and its partners - will prioritize the recovery and reconstruction of the south, once it reclaims its sovereignty.

President Aoun’s recent statement that decisions of war and peace belong solely to the state and that restrictions on weapons are “irreversible” is timely and encouraging. But without follow-through actions, Washington will inevitably shift its focus elsewhere—to Syria, Gaza, and Iran—leaving Lebanon to slide further into irrelevance.

Meanwhile, the geopolitical landscape is evolving rapidly. A potential entente between Syria and Israel could redraw the map of regional priorities and sideline Lebanon altogether. Without clearly demarcated border and a decisive Lebanese approach to conclude a deal, the country risks becoming an afterthought—its sovereignty decided without its presence.

Ambassador Tom Barrack’s current visit may well be decisive. For the first time in years, there is a confluence of diplomatic interest, local disposition, and American commitment to invest in Lebanon’s recovery if Lebanon’s leadership shows the proper resolve. But the moment is fleeting and Washington‘s patience is finite.

The meeting with Lebanese leaders is a test. The question therefore before Lebanon is simple: will it speak with one voice, “one people, one country, one army,” or leave the future, once again, in the hands of others?