The 45-day extension of the Lebanon-Israel ceasefire signals that negotiations in Washington between the two countries remain on track — and not merely so. Positive indicators emerged from the third round of talks, which unfolded across two consecutive days, producing a clearer framework for the negotiations: two parallel tracks, one security-focused and one diplomatic. The security track is scheduled to convene at the Pentagon on May 29, while the diplomatic track is set to continue on June 2 and 3.
It may be premature to speak of a specific settlement being prepared by the United States for imminent implementation on the ground. Yet information from American sources familiar with the negotiations' atmosphere indicates that precisely such a settlement is being pursued with notable seriousness. Several breakthroughs were achieved during the two sessions held over the past two days — particularly Friday's session, in which the exchanges between the Lebanese and Israeli sides were characterized by rare candor and depth. This suggests a mature understanding of the differences between the two parties and of their shared ground, especially on the question of Hezbollah's disarmament, which appeared to function as the operative consensus binding all three delegating parties.
A Framework Takes Shape
The American side worked strenuously to bridge the gap that emerged between the Lebanese and Israeli negotiating teams on Thursday, when Israel insisted on Hezbollah's disarmament as a precondition and Lebanon held firm on its demand for a consolidated ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal from the south. Washington's strategy was to decouple the political and security tracks, thereby keeping the negotiations alive.
American sources reveal that Washington applied pressure on both sides and succeeded in extracting certain concessions — though developments on the ground in southern Lebanon continue to obstruct progress. This is, in all likelihood, precisely what Hezbollah intends: to sabotage the talks and draw Israel into expanding its operations. The sources note that, on direct instructions from President Donald Trump, pressure was applied on Israel to refrain from striking deep into Lebanese territory — Beirut in particular. As a result, the ceasefire will hold, at least partially, north of the Litani River — the boundary stipulated under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 — though the southern arena cannot be fully contained so long as the regional war continues and the Lebanese state remains unable to rein in Hezbollah.
The significance of what has been achieved should not be understated, the American sources insist. The meeting scheduled for May 29 at the Pentagon is expected to lay the groundwork for what would effectively function as a military operations room between Lebanon and Israel under American auspices — one that would address unresolved military and security matters and establish full coordination between the two states. As for the political track, Lebanese authorities have reason to take note: it materially strengthens the prospects for a durable peaceful resolution.
American sources are nonetheless calling on the Lebanese side to adopt a more unified and effective posture in the negotiations. They do not conceal their satisfaction with the position articulated by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who said: “Give us a ceasefire and take what astonishes the negotiators.” This is a position worth building on — the more so given that Berri had previously rejected the principle of direct negotiations. Should the speaker enter the process in earnest, his influence over Hezbollah could render the ceasefire substantially more credible and effective, lending the negotiations a more conducive atmosphere.
The Five-Point Settlement
The Lebanese delegation will not abandon its demand for a consolidated ceasefire, however difficult its realization may currently appear. Al-Modon has learned that the deferral of a decision on this demand stems from the fact that a comprehensive American settlement is in preparation — one that may see the light of day at the next negotiating session in early June. According to available information, the settlement rests on five points:
First, the formation of an international committee to end the state of unlawful armament and allocate the necessary resources, beginning south of the Litani River and extending across all of Lebanon.
Second, the consolidation of the ceasefire.
Third, the opening of negotiations to demarcate the land border.
Fourth, the scheduling of an Israeli military withdrawal from the southern villages and towns it currently occupies.
Fifth, a meeting between Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, paving the way for a peace agreement between the two states.
The Disarmament Document
The road to implementing these points, however, remains long. American sources disclose further details of a document currently being drafted in Washington that outlines a mechanism for Hezbollah’s disarmament. Its core provisions include: the consolidation of the ceasefire to guarantee a comprehensive halt to all ground, air, and maritime violations by both parties; the termination of all unlawful armed presence through the disarmament of non-state actors — Hezbollah foremost among them — before the end of 2026; the deployment of the Lebanese army along the border and south of the Litani River as a first phase, followed by additional positions to the north and east in parallel with a phased Israeli withdrawal; the resolution of the prisoner file through the International Committee of the Red Cross; the demarcation of Lebanon’s international and maritime boundaries with Israel; and the mobilization of international economic support, to be crowned by a conference convening Washington, Paris, Riyadh, and Doha for Lebanon’s reconstruction — described in the document as “President Trump’s vision to make Lebanon great again.”
According to these sources, the proposed mechanism envisions the Israeli withdrawal and Hezbollah’s disarmament proceeding in four timed phases, monitored around the clock by American and French satellites and drones, with weekly reports issued by the designated oversight body. The possibility of imposing graduated sanctions on parties that violate the plan is also under consideration.
The sources hold that this document — currently in preparation — will be formally committed to by international sponsors as a guarantee of security and stability “following full implementation.”
There is no doubt that trust between the two countries remains limited after years of persistent conflict. Yet what has transpired in the Washington negotiations has brought each party closer to the other and narrowed the scope of their contradictions — even if further rounds of talks, which have now begun in earnest, remain necessary. The translation of any agreement into concrete reality may yet wait upon the resolution of the broader regional crisis, particularly on the axis of American-Iranian confrontation.
