In a high-stakes diplomatic effort to prevent a regional war, officials from France, Saudi Arabia, and the United States convened in Paris on December 18, 2025, for critical talks with Lebanese Army Chief General Joseph Aoun. The objective: to finalize a concrete roadmap for the disarmament of the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia, a move seen as essential to securing a fragile ceasefire along the Israel-Lebanon border.
The meeting underscores a rare alignment of Western and Arab diplomatic priorities. For France, a former colonial power with deep ties to Lebanon, the goal is stability on its strategic southern flank. For Saudi Arabia, countering the influence of its regional rival, Iran—Hezbollah’s primary patron—is a core security interest. The United States, brokering from a position of global power, aims to prevent a conflict that could draw in its ally Israel and destabilize the entire Eastern Mediterranean. This tripartite pressure represents the most concerted international push in years to address the core issue of Hezbollah’s military arsenal, which exists independently of the Lebanese state.
The context is a ceasefire, brokered by Washington in 2024, that ended over a year of intense fighting. While the truce halted major hostilities, it has been persistently brittle. Israel regularly accuses Hezbollah of violating the terms by maintaining armed positions in southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah points to continued Israeli overflights and targeted strikes. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), officially tasked with being the nation’s sole military authority, are caught in the middle—widely respected but critically underfunded and politically constrained from confronting a group that is both a powerful political party and a formidable guerrilla army.
“The situation is extremely precarious, full of contradictions, and it won’t take much to light the powder keg,” a senior official involved in the talks told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The Paris talks aimed to create a more robust verification mechanism. According to French foreign ministry spokesperson Pascal Confavreux, the parties agreed to “document seriously with evidence” the LAF’s disarmament efforts. In practice, this likely means embedding French, U.S., and possibly other international military observers within the existing UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) framework to monitor and verify Hezbollah’s withdrawal of heavy weapons from the border zone. The goal is twofold: to provide Israel with tangible proof of progress to deter escalation, and to build the LAF’s capacity and legitimacy as the sole security provider.
However, the plan faces monumental obstacles. Domestically, President Aoun walks a political tightrope. Hezbollah is deeply embedded in Lebanon’s Shiite community and its political fabric. A public, aggressive disarmament campaign could trigger severe internal strife. “Aoun doesn’t want to make the disarmament process too public because he fears it will antagonise and provoke tensions with the Shi’ite community in the south of the country,” the anonymous official explained. Furthermore, with legislative elections scheduled for 2026, Lebanon’s chronic political paralysis is expected to worsen, making decisive state action even less likely.
The international response to these challenges is a planned conference in February 2026, aimed at fundraising to “reinforce the Lebanese army.” This is a long-standing strategy: strengthening the state institution as a counterweight to non-state actors. Yet, past billions in aid have failed to neutralize Hezbollah’s autonomous power, highlighting the limits of a purely military-technical solution to a profoundly political and sectarian problem.
As if to underscore the urgency and the difficulty, the Paris talks were shadowed by violence. On the very day officials met, Israeli strikes hit Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. The Israeli military stated it struck a military compound used for “training, weapons storage, and artillery launches,” actions it said violated the ceasefire understandings. In Lebanon, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, interpreted the strikes as an “Israeli message” to the Paris conference—a stark reminder that any diplomatic roadmap exists under the constant threat of military veto.
The path forward is fraught. Success requires the international coalition to navigate Lebanon’s sectarian minefield, provide the LAF with unprecedented support and political cover, and offer Israel enough security guarantees to exercise restraint. Failure likely means the slow unraveling of the ceasefire and a return to wider conflict, with devastating consequences for Lebanon and the region. The Paris meeting was a significant step in recognizing the problem, but the journey from roadmap to reality on the ground remains Lebanon’s most perilous challenge.
