Florida negotiations dispel the specter of Israeli surprises, but what about Hezbollah?

The announcement by Lebanese President General Joseph Aoun that military negotiations with Israel, sponsored by the United States, would take place on Tuesday (October 20) in Tampa, Florida, eased concerns in Beirut that Tel Aviv might preempt the Knesset elections scheduled for October 27 by launching a major escalation against Hezbollah. However, the sudden confirmation of the date for the eighth round of direct talks, which excludes political delegations, does not guarantee that Lebanon will not be drawn into the eye of a new firestorm should the Iranian front erupt in a manner suggesting it is the “last battle.” This is because Hezbollah and Tehran hold a monopoly on decision-making regarding war, and thus control the keys to a “viable” peace, which remains contingent on the state’s success in implementing the decision to monopolize weapons.

The confirmation of the Tampa negotiation round came two days after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio contacted President Aoun on Thursday evening. The call addressed the issue of a Hezbollah explosives shipment seized two weeks ago while en route from Baalbek to Beirut’s southern suburbs, as well as a lawsuit filed by one of the lawyers against Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Nada Hamadeh Muawad. Ambassador Muawad, a key member of the negotiation team with Tel Aviv, was targeted under the Boycott of Israel Law (1955), which Washington had demanded be repealed.

On the eve of the military negotiation round, it appeared difficult to anticipate any breakthrough on two key issues: securing a timetable for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon or expanding the “experimental zones” to include points within the “Blue Line,” or establishing a verification mechanism intended to serve as the operational framework for the goals of withdrawal and weapons removal. Such a mechanism would require not only agreement among its multinational participants on its jurisdiction and mandate, but also the elimination of any ambiguity regarding the unified definition and geography of weapons restriction.

While President Aoun announced to French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Noël Barrot and the Minister Delegate to the Minister of the Armed Forces, Alice Ruffey, that “the Lebanese military delegation will participate in the trilateral meeting in Tampa on October 20 to place Lebanon’s demands for an end to Israeli escalation on the table, with the hope of achieving results consistent with the Framework Agreement” (signed between Lebanon, Israel, and the United States on June 26), the Lebanese president’s stance reflected low expectations regarding the outcomes of this round. Assessments suggest that the maximum outcome could involve commitments to accelerate the process of releasing prisoners held by Tel Aviv, a “paper” demarcation of a second experimental zone open to adoption (with proposals suggesting areas around Mount Ali al-Taher and the Shqif Castle), and a deeper elaboration of the verification mechanism and its components.

According to political circles, Tel Aviv, which is in a countdown to its elections, will not be inclined to present any retreating image toward Lebanon. While Israel is mindful of Washington’s desire not to escalate on the southern front and further embarrass the Lebanese state—which is deepening its internal troubles after beginning to translate the decision to contain Hezbollah’s weapons north of the Litani River and confiscate them when seized, as occurred with the “C4 shipment and its kin”—Israel is not prepared for any steps that would alter its existing strategy of linking withdrawal from the security zone to the removal of Hezbollah’s weapons from all of Lebanon, at least until the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam demonstrates both the will and the capacity to do so.

It was no passing remark on Sunday, amid Israeli reports of heightened military readiness on the northern border, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who received significant support from President Donald Trump in his elections—to declare that he does not trust the Lebanese government’s ability to disarm Hezbollah. He insisted that Israeli forces would continue to remain in the security zone south of Lebanon unless the party is disarmed and its military capabilities dismantled.

In a radio interview, Netanyahu stated that Israel would maintain its military presence in the security zone as long as Hezbollah retains its weapons, emphasizing that Israel would continue to carry out operations against the group “as needed,” and noting that its ultimate goal is its eradication.

While Netanyahu clearly delineated the boundaries of the Tampa round and his concept of disarming Hezbollah across all of Lebanon, there remains a need for a definitive stance from Washington—“once and for all”—clarifying what is meant by its insistence on the “disarmament of Hezbollah first before receiving reconstruction funds,” and whether it distinguishes between south and north of the Litani River (where strategic weapons and drones are located). Political circles believe that the United States leveraged this ambiguity to pressure Israel into holding negotiations on Tuesday—after Tel Aviv had shown little enthusiasm for them prior to the Knesset elections—by pointing to the Lebanese security forces’ seizure of a Hezbollah explosives shipment, the government’s refusal to return it, and its commitment to hold all officials responsible accountable. It is worth noting that Beirut implicitly presented this operation as the first implementation of a process to contain weapons north of the Litani, as outlined in government decisions under Saad Hariri’s administration, which called for gradually restricting weapon possession to the state (starting with south of the Litani), before it was toppled by the war of Iranian proxy support.

While Washington insists on holding accountable those who “ordered, funded, and directed the shipment,” Hezbollah has not hesitated once again to undermine Lebanese state efforts to bring Israel to the negotiating table by dispelling any doubt about its determination to rebuild its military stockpile in the south in confrontation with Tel Aviv. This sends a clear message that any negotiation track and state commitments regarding its arsenal, including in the south, are merely “ink on paper.” Hezbollah is also preparing the “theater” for a confrontation with the state should it choose hierarchical legal accountability, indicating that alongside its insistence on retaining its arsenal, the party is determined to maintain its “linkage” tools with Iran, with indicators suggesting that its explosion may not be far off.

On Sunday, reports emerged quoting Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi as saying, “We have significant differences in viewpoints with the current Lebanese government on how to address issues in Lebanon.” In response, Hezbollah’s deputy, Hassan Fadlallah, escalated the issue of the explosives shipment, questioning some “people in power” in Lebanon: “Why are you taking the country, under American pressure—specifically from the US Secretary of State—into an internal confrontation? Who benefits from it? Does it benefit the Pact and the government? Does it benefit them to tense the country and provoke people in this way? And why is there insistence on providing the causes for internal confrontation?” He added, “We are not facing the state and its decisions; rather, there are some people in power who are under American external patronage and are executing its requests (...) It is natural for the Resistance to transport weapons and for them to reach the front. But how they are transported and by which route has its own procedures. Otherwise, how does the Resistance prepare itself and build its capabilities? And how will it fight this enemy? Will it fight it with sacks of potatoes?”

He concluded: “The situation in Lebanon will not remain as it is, and the equation in Lebanon will change. This authority will not remain as it is. We are patient and enduring, but things will change. Therefore, our advice to them is to calm down a bit and for none of them to tie his fate to the fate of this authority.”

In response, Salam, following Hezbollah’s security briefing in Beirut on Friday evening regarding the shipment file and his attempt to issue a “warning” to the state about the dangers of pursuing a “vertical” accountability path according to the chain of command, stressed that there is no ceiling for prosecutions in this case.

The Prime Minister announced that he had contacted Army Commander General Rodolphe Heikel and Internal Security Forces Commander Major General Raad Abdullah, commending “the reinforcement of the Lebanese Armed Forces’ deployment in Greater Beirut over the past two days, and its importance in reassuring citizens that the state and its armed forces are vigilant for their security and safety, following the nighttime gatherings in the capital that raised suspicion and anxiety about the potential risks.”

He said: “There is no need to emphasize that stability will not be achieved in the country unless the state’s authority is established over its entire territory, even if gradually, exclusively by its own forces. I also met with Justice Minister Adil Nassar and the General Prosecutor Rami Al-Hajj to follow up on measures taken to expand the investigation into the explosives shipment seized in Dahr Al-Bider and its aftermath, and to arrest all those involved in possessing and transporting any weapons outside the law, referring them to the competent judiciary to receive their punishment. For us, the only limit in this regard is the limit of the law.”

In a move considered an indicator of what Beirut is conveying to its Western and Arab friends regarding the necessity of not giving Israel an excuse to resume war with Lebanon, Salam said: “I seize this opportunity to call on everyone to prioritize the country’s interest over any other consideration, and not to link it to any external interests or goals. I reiterate that the decision of war and peace must remain solely in the hands of the state and its constitutional institutions.”

While French Foreign Minister and Minister Delegate to the Minister of Armed Forces continued their meetings in Beirut, where they heard from President Nabih Berri and President Najib Salam Lebanon’s insistence on extending the mandate of UNIFIL, whose mission ends at the end of the year, or “continuing its security tasks during 2027, the year designated for its withdrawal,” and if that is not possible, Lebanon welcomes any formula ensuring an international presence in the south to prevent a vacuum upon UNIFIL’s withdrawal, thereby keeping the Lebanese Army in contact with the Israeli Army in the occupied areas, as President Aoun had also stressed.

Emphasizing the necessity of stopping Israeli attacks and enhancing the capabilities of the Lebanese Army to enable it to carry out its mission of establishing state authority over its entire territory, Salam and Aoun stressed that Berri highlighted “that national and international efforts must unite and integrate to stop the aggression and compel Israel to implement international legitimacy resolutions, foremost among them Resolution 1701, not to overthrow it.”

Meanwhile, Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Fahmy began a visit to Beirut, where he met with senior officials and political leaders to consult on the most prominent regional developments, issues of common interest, and ways to preserve stability in Lebanon.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji issued an appeal to Iran and its affiliates, calling on them to “stop their attacks on Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Jordan,” reaffirming Lebanon’s full solidarity with these countries and its “commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 2817, which calls for an immediate halt to these attacks,” while stressing the rejection of any restrictions on freedom of transit through international waterways, particularly the Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab straits.

During his participation in the 52nd session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, held in Iraq, Raji addressed the issue of weapons, stating: “The government made a decisive decision in August 2025 to restrict weapons exclusively to legitimate security apparatuses and to extend state authority over its entire territory using its own forces alone, believing that there is no sovereignty with dual armed forces, no stability with a rogue decision outside state institutions, and no sustainable development except under a strong and capable state.” He added: “Despite repeated warnings about the dangers of dragging Lebanon into futile wars, Hezbollah has dragged it into two destructive wars with Israel, in October 2023 and March 2026.”

He paused to discuss the “fierce” war launched by Israel, which led to the occupation of large parts of Lebanese territory, renewing his condemnation of its successive violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and considering these violations as breaches of international law and international humanitarian law. At the same time, he called on Iran to “stop its interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs, its challenges to the decisions of the Lebanese government, and its supply of weapons and funds to Hezbollah.”

He reaffirmed his commitment to Resolution 1701, stating that it remains the broader framework for addressing the requirements of the current phase, alongside the 2024 ceasefire declaration, the 1949 armistice agreement, and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

Based on the government’s conviction in the importance of dialogue and diplomatic solutions, he pointed out in the conclusion of his speech to the trilateral framework reached with the United States and Israel, emphasizing that “it could lead to the complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, the return of displaced persons to their villages, the launch of a reconstruction process, the release of prisoners, as well as the disarmament of all armed groups, the restriction of weapons exclusively to legitimate Lebanese authorities, and the extension of state authority over its entire territory using its own forces alone.”