The United States Embassy in Beirut delivered a particularly direct message on Thursday, 10 September, about Hezbollah’s weapons and the control of southern Lebanon. Washington states that the Lebanese prefer state institutions to Shiite party weapons and that the southern territory of the country « does not belong » to militias or regional actors. This stance comes the day after an unusual warning by the Lebanese army against the intensification of Israeli attacks, accused of compromising its efforts to restore stability.
The American declaration is not just another condemnation of Hezbollah’s weapons. Its formulation directly places the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon and the role of the army at the centre of the current balance of power. Washington thus publicly supports the principle that decisions on war and peace must be made exclusively by the Lebanese State, as the fighting in the South weakens the arrangements reached in June.
Washington hardens its message on Hezbollah
In a message posted Thursday on Platform X, the US embassy in Beirut states that Lebanese people show daily preference for state institutions rather than for Hezbollah weapons.
The American representative added that southern Lebanon « does not belong to regional actors or militias ». A transparent reference to Iran and Hezbollah, supported politically, financially and militarily by Tehran.
Washington says it supports the communities that choose public institutions and the Lebanese government in its stated goal of restoring its sovereignty. The United States places the Lebanese army at the heart of this mechanism and reaffirms that decisions on war and peace must be made exclusively by the State.
The vocabulary chosen is significant. The United States no longer sees only the disarmament of Hezbollah as a security obligation arising from the arrangements with Israel. They are part of a political opposition between two models: that of a territory under the authority of Lebanese institutions and that where an armed organization retains an independent military capacity.
The specific mention of the South is not annodine. It is precisely in this region that the implementation of the arrangements negotiated in June is currently taking place. The army must gradually exercise its authority there, while Hezbollah’s military infrastructure must be dismantled and Israeli forces supposedly withdraw under agreed arrangements.
This mechanism remains largely blocked.
The South of Lebanon at the heart of the arm
The American declaration is in a very degraded military situation.
In recent days, Israel has significantly intensified its operations in southern Lebanon. The strikes affected several localities and infrastructure. On Monday, 7 September, shelling of Kfar Remmane in the Nabatiyah area killed at least twelve people, including two children and four women, according to the Lebanese authorities.
Israel claims to target Hezbollah members, weapons depots and military infrastructure. Hezbollah has also carried out several drone attacks against Israeli forces.
The confrontation was particularly concentrated around the strategic ridge of Ali al-Taher, near Nabatiyah. The Israeli army announced in early September that it had taken operational control of the area and neutralized fighters and an underground network used by Hezbollah. The exact extent of Israeli control, however, remains difficult to establish independently.
The site has an importance that goes beyond its geography. Washington wanted Hezbollah to hand it over to the Lebanese army in the disarmament process. The Shiite movement is opposed.
This situation illustrates the central difficulty of the current system: the Lebanese State is called upon to regain military control of the territory, but it must do so as Hezbollah retains arms and Israel continues its operations on Lebanese soil.
The message published on Thursday by the American embassy comes precisely in the midst of this contradiction.
Lebanese Army accuses Israel of obstructing its mission
The day before, Wednesday, 9 September, the Lebanese Army command issued a particularly firm statement against Israel.
The military institution denounced a new wave of « wide-ranging » attacks against Lebanon and the intensification of strikes against residential areas and institutions. She cited among other things the twelve dead of Kfar Remmane.
Most importantly, the army has directly linked Israeli operations to the difficulties encountered in implementing existing arrangements.
According to his command, the continuation of attacks, along with destruction and demolition in the South, threatens « existing agreements and arrangements » and hinders the army’s efforts to establish stability.
This position is important because it introduces a second responsibility in the current deadlock.
Washington focuses its statement on Thursday on Hezbollah and the need to restore the state’s arms monopoly. The Lebanese army, for its part, replied that it could not fully accomplish its mission as long as Israel continued its strikes and operations on its national territory.
The two statements are not necessarily contradictory. However, they describe the two obstacles that paralyze the arrangement: the maintenance of an independent military capability of Hezbollah and the continuation of Israeli operations.
For Beirut, this equation is politically sensitive. The government is committed to strengthening the state’s arms monopoly. But it must also demonstrate that this process leads to an effective restoration of sovereignty, thus at the end of Israeli military operations and presence on Lebanese territory.
Washington bets on the Lebanese army
The explicit reference of the American embassy to the Lebanese Armed Forces confirms the place that Washington assigns them in the post-war period.
The American objective is to make the army the only legitimate military force capable of lasting control of the territory. This logic is directly related to the disarmament of Hezbollah.
However, it assumes that the army can actually deploy to the areas concerned.
The framework agreement concluded in June foresees a parallel progression: dismantling of Hezbollah’s military capabilities, deployment of the Lebanese army and the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces. In fact, this synchronization does not work easily.
Hezbollah still refuses general disarmament. The movement has been willing to discuss its weapons south of the Litani River, but so far rejects requests for all Lebanese territory.
Israel considers this position insufficient. His Minister of Defense, Israel Katz, claimed that Israeli forces would not leave the security zone until Hezbollah was disarmed throughout the country and threats against northern Israel were eliminated.
Lebanon is thus caught in a conditional logic: Israel links its withdrawal to the disarmament of Hezbollah, while disarmament becomes politically more difficult to impose when Israeli forces remain present and continue their strikes.
It was precisely this mechanics that the Lebanese army denounced on Wednesday, claiming that Israeli escalation was hampering its efforts.
Sovereignty becomes the centre of American discourse
Thursday’s message also measures the evolution of Washington’s speech.
The United States no longer talks about border security or respect for a ceasefire. They highlight the principle of Lebanese sovereignty exercised by State institutions.
The issue of Hezbollah’s weapons is thus placed in the broader issue of the monopoly of military decision-making.
The formula on « decisions of war and peace » has a particular political significance in Lebanon. For years, Hizbullah’s opponents have accused him of being able to engage the country in a confrontation with Israel without a prior decision by the government.
The events of 2026 gave this debate a new dimension. The hostilities unleashed in March resulted in a large-scale Israeli offensive and heavy destruction in Lebanon. More than 4,300 people have been killed since March according to figures from the Lebanese Ministry of Health, which does not systematically distinguish civilians and combatants.
The June ceasefire severely reduced the fighting, without stopping it.
For Washington, preventing a new cycle of war therefore implies that the state controls not only the territory, but also the decision to use force.
It is from this perspective that one must understand the assertion that the South cannot belong to a militia or a regional power. It targets Hezbollah, but also the strategic link between the movement and Iran.
An American pressure that meets its own limits
US support for the Lebanese state, however, faces an immediate difficulty: Washington is simultaneously the main external partner capable of exerting a significant influence on Israel.
President Joseph Aoun has already called on the United States and the international community to intervene to stop Israeli attacks. The military now publicly formulates the same problem from an operational point of view: the strikes prevent the stabilization which it is responsible for ensuring.
This issue is becoming all the more pressing as violence has intensified since early September.
In order to convince a part of the population of the South that the replacement of Hezbollah weapons by State authority brings more security, the government must be able to show that its deployment effectively leads to a reduction in attacks and an Israeli withdrawal.
Otherwise, Hezbollah can exploit the continuation of the bombings to defend its traditional argument: the state and its army alone would not be able to protect the territory.
This is probably one of the most important issues in the current sequence.
The American message says that people want the state rather than Hezbollah weapons. To turn this political statement into a lasting reality, Washington must therefore support the Lebanese army’s ability to take control of the areas concerned, while Beirut must move forward on the arms monopoly.
Israel, for its part, affirms that its operations will remain necessary as long as Hezbollah maintains military capabilities and continues to attack its forces.
These positions today form a difficult circle to break.
The declaration of the US embassy of 10 September nevertheless clearly establishes the Washington line: southern Lebanon must return to the exclusive authority of the State, the army must be its military instrument and no organization supported by a foreign power must retain an autonomous right to decide the war.
The immediate evolution will now depend on the terrain. Following the public warning issued by the Lebanese Army on Wednesday, Washington’s ability to achieve a reduction in Israeli operations will be observed as closely as Beirut’s actions on Hezbollah weapons.
