WASHINGTON, 22 July. - (ANA) - Lebanese President Joseph Aoun's meeting with US President Donald Trump on Tuesday will only be judged a success if Washington can secure binding guarantees on an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, rather than offering fresh political assurances, experts told The New Arab, warning that failure could strengthen Hezbollah's argument that diplomacy cannot protect Lebanon.

 

Aoun's visit comes almost a month after Lebanon and Israel signed a US-brokered framework agreement in Washington following days of unprecedented direct negotiations aimed at ending months of conflict and restoring Lebanese state authority in the south.

 

The talks also come as Hezbollah has intensified its criticism of both the agreement and Aoun's approach, accusing the president of advancing Israeli objectives by pushing to disarm the group.

 

The White House invited Aoun to Washington following the signing of the June 26 framework agreement. He is expected to press Trump to increase pressure on Israel to fully withdraw from southern Lebanon, halt ongoing military operations, support reconstruction efforts, and continue backing the Lebanese Armed Forces.

 

Nizar Ghanem, director of research at the Alternative Policy Institute in Beirut, said the future of the agreement remained closely tied to the wider relationship between Washington and Tehran because of Iran's influence over Hezbollah.

 

"The agreement's future depends considerably on the trajectory of US-Iran relations, but it should not be made entirely hostage to them," Ghanem told TNA.

 

"Iran's relationship with Hezbollah means that any durable settlement involving the organisation's weapons will inevitably be influenced by the wider regional balance. A US-Iran understanding would make implementation easier by reducing the likelihood that Lebanon is once again used as an arena for regional confrontation," he added.

 

However, he argued that the agreement could only succeed if it developed "its own enforceable logic of reciprocity", warning that Lebanon could not reasonably be expected to meet increasingly difficult security commitments as the Israeli withdrawal, the cessation of attacks, and reconstruction remained vague, conditional, or indefinitely delayed.

 

"A viable agreement must therefore establish parallel obligations, clear deadlines and consequences for violations by either side," he said. "Without these, even successful US-Iran diplomacy would not correct the framework's structural weaknesses."

 

Ghanem also warned that another deterioration in US-Iran relations would place the agreement under severe pressure.

 

"It may survive formally, but its implementation would be placed under severe strain," he said. "Renewed confrontation between Washington and Tehran would strengthen actors on all sides who regard escalation, rather than compromise, as the more effective strategy," Ghanem said. "It would also make Hezbollah less likely to take irreversible steps while Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territory or retains broad freedom to conduct military operations."

 

He said the framework could only be insulated from wider regional tensions if it delivered tangible reciprocal gains early in its implementation, including "verified Israeli withdrawals, the return of displaced communities, an effective ceasefire and the expansion of Lebanese state authority".

 

"At present, the absence of a firm withdrawal timetable and the ambiguity surrounding verification risk reproducing the same deadlock: Israel demands that Lebanon complete its obligations first, while Lebanon has no reliable guarantee that Israeli compliance will follow," he added.

 

Although Israeli forces were meant to begin withdrawing under the agreement signed on 26 June, they continue to occupy parts of southern Lebanon, reinforcing concerns over the sequencing of obligations.

 

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has escalated its criticism of both the framework agreement and Aoun's strategy ahead of the Washington meeting.

 

Speaking on Tuesday, Hezbollah MP Hassan Ezzeddine said the president's insistence on pursuing direct negotiations with Israel and seeking to disarm the "resistance" threatened Lebanon's national consensus.

 

He warned that Aoun's refusal to change course risked creating "a vertical division" within Lebanese society and weakening internal unity, arguing that the president was becoming "the president of one group of Lebanese rather than all Lebanese".

 

Ezzeddine also accused the Lebanese leadership of aligning itself with Israeli objectives by linking Israeli withdrawal, reconstruction, and economic assistance to Hezbollah's disarmament.

 

He argued that the framework agreement's core purpose was "to spare the enemy the enormous effort required to disarm the resistance", adding that the authorities had effectively made concessions before securing an Israeli withdrawal.

 

Despite Hezbollah's opposition, Ghanem said there remained broad support inside Lebanon for ending the conflict and restoring the state's exclusive authority over decisions of war and peace.

 

"There is a broad Lebanese constituency for ending the war, restoring state sovereignty and ensuring that decisions of war and peace are held exclusively by the state," he said.

 

"That should not, however, be confused with a consensus around the agreement as presently structured."

 

He said the central political divide centred on whether Lebanon should fulfil its security obligations before obtaining guarantees from Israel.

 

"One camp believes Lebanon must fulfil its security commitments to secure withdrawal and international support," Ghanem said. "Others fear that Lebanon is being asked to make irreversible concessions without binding guarantees that Israel will withdraw, stop its attacks, or respect Lebanese sovereignty."

 

"Hezbollah's rejection of the framework is the clearest manifestation of that divide, but skepticism extends beyond Hezbollah's constituency whenever implementation appears one-sided," he noted.

 

Ghanem argued that public support for the agreement would ultimately depend on whether it produced visible improvements on the ground.

 

"Political consensus will deepen only if the Lebanese public sees that state authority brings actual sovereignty, not merely additional obligations for Lebanon," he said.

 

"If Israeli withdrawal remains conditional and open-ended, while pressure on the Lebanese state intensifies, the agreement could strengthen Hezbollah's argument that diplomacy cannot protect the country," he added.

 

Asked what would constitute a successful outcome from Aoun's Washington visit, Ghanem said political backing from the United States alone would not be enough.

 

"US political support is important, but assurances alone would not constitute success," he said. "Lebanon has received assurances before, while Israeli withdrawals, ceasefires, and restrictions on military action have either been delayed or incompletely implemented.

 

"What President Aoun needs is not another declaration of intent, but a credible mechanism translating American influence into Israeli compliance," he added.

 

He said a meaningful outcome would require a clear timetable for Israeli withdrawal, measurable reciprocal obligations, an independent verification mechanism, procedures for addressing violations, and explicit US commitments to reconstruction and support for the Lebanese Armed Forces.

 

"Without these elements, the visit might be presented diplomatically as progress, but it would be difficult to defend politically as a success," he said.

 

Ghanem added that Aoun had tied his presidency to five interconnected objectives—securing a genuine ceasefire, achieving an Israeli withdrawal, restoring state authority through the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces, enabling displaced residents to return home, and obtaining international support for reconstruction.

 

"These cannot be separated," he said. "If withdrawal and the cessation of attacks are not secured, the state's ability to deliver the remaining objectives will be severely undermined."

 

"The danger is not simply that the agreement fails. It is that a visibly unequal process discredits the Lebanese state and revives the argument that only armed resistance can compel Israel to withdraw," he added.

 

For Aoun, Ghanem concluded, "the standard of success should be concrete, enforceable and reciprocal progress, not the warmth of the assurances he receives in Washington."  - (ANA) -

 

AB/ANA/22 July 2026 - - -