Two American researchers have raised concerns that the political, economic, and security incentives offered by the Trump administration to Lebanon are being advanced before Beirut fulfills its commitments regarding Hezbollah’s disarmament. They argue that the U.S. risks losing a vital leverage tool without achieving substantial and verifiable results.
In an analysis published by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, researchers Ahmad Charrow and David Daoud noted that Joseph Aoun, the President of Lebanon, and his allies rightly touted his recent Washington visit as a success.
The authors indicate that President Trump sent Aoun back to Beirut laden with political, economic, and security incentives, aiming to align Lebanon towards Washington before Tehran can leverage the U.S.-Iran ceasefire to support Hezbollah.
The analysis describes the U.S. strategy as “sound” but suggests its implementation is flawed, as the rewards from Washington precede Beirut’s execution of a framework agreement signed on June 26.
This agreement links further U.S. assistance and an incremental Israeli withdrawal to documented, nationwide actions against Hezbollah by the Lebanese government.
Offering incentives prior to fulfilling these conditions threatens to undermine U.S. leverage needed for ensuring desired outcomes, with the analysis suggesting American rewards should follow Hezbollah disarmament.
The urgency in Washington and Tehran is attributed to setbacks Hezbollah has faced on the ground.
According to Charrow and Daoud, since the party’s attack on Israel in October 2023, Israel has killed a considerable portion of Hezbollah’s leadership, including hundreds of mid-level commanders, and dismantled a significant part of its arsenal and infrastructure.
They note that near-daily Israeli strikes, even post the November 2024 ceasefire, have hindered Hezbollah's attempts to restore its capabilities.
Hezbollah’s assault on northern Israel following the conflict with Iran on February 28 led to a new, intensified Israeli offensive.
The researchers argue that Iran sought to resolve the war and halt the open-ended Israeli campaign. Thus, it leveraged Washington’s pursuit of a ceasefire with Tehran in April to secure a parallel truce in Lebanon.
According to the article, Iran managed to place the decision about Hezbollah’s arsenal solely in Lebanese hands, aligning with Hezbollah’s goals, which shifted the issue to a more suitable internal platform for rebuilding its capacities.
The researchers emphasize that Hezbollah’s broad support within the Shia community has left Lebanese political and military leaders wary that forcibly disarming it could trigger a civil conflict.
They argue that this internal process might be delayed, hollowed, or reduced to formalities, giving Hezbollah time to replenish its strength.
The analysis concludes that the success of Trump’s strategy in Lebanon hinges not on the size of incentives offered to Beirut, but on their timing—American rewards should follow documented Lebanese steps against Hezbollah’s armament, not precede them.