Weapons, withdrawal, and a warning: US envoy’s high-stakes offer — will Lebanon seize the deal or face the unknown?

Report by Joe Farchakh, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

On June 19, U.S. envoy Tom Barrack arrived in Beirut carrying what was described as a “roadmap” — one whose symbolism may rival that of the ceasefire agreement.

On July 7, Barrack is set to return to the Lebanese capital for a new round of talks with Lebanon’s three top officials, where he will receive the government’s official response to the proposal he presented during his previous visit.

Between his arrival and the anticipated meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the central question remains: Can Lebanon use this window to intensify diplomatic contacts and secure the strongest possible guarantees before finalizing any deal?

Barrack’s proposal, presented in a six-page document, reflects not only a U.S. position but also broader international backing. It could potentially reshape Lebanon’s postwar landscape.

At the heart of the proposal is a demand to place all weapons under the control of the Lebanese state. In return, it offers a full Israeli military withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the start of reconstruction efforts, a detainee exchange initiative, and a pathway to broad international economic support for Lebanon. 

The proposal includes a clear condition: implementation must begin before the end of the year.

So, how has Lebanon officially responded?

Sources familiar with the matter told LBCI that the state remains committed to asserting control over all arms in the country, reaffirming this goal based on the constitution, the Taif Agreement, the presidential oath, and the ministerial statement. 

The government, they said, is proceeding with measured steps to achieve this objective.

At the same time, Lebanon is asking the international community — particularly the United States — to apply serious pressure on Israel to halt targeted assassinations, withdraw fully from the south, and move forward with a captive exchange agreement.

Barrack is expected to present Lebanon’s reply to the Trump administration not only to brief Washington but also to convey it to the Israeli side, which may offer its own feedback ahead of a new round of negotiations.

Sources close to Hezbollah told LBCI that the main obstacle to finalizing any agreement lies not only in U.S. guarantees regarding a full Israeli withdrawal, an end to daily violations and drone strikes but also in a core principle put forward by the group: that any new deal must be preceded by the full implementation of existing agreements, including Resolution 1701 and the current ceasefire.

The group says it does not oppose peace and is prepared for it — but only after prior commitments are fulfilled. Only then, it says, can internal Lebanese dialogue begin on the question of disarmament within the framework of a national defense strategy.

Tom Barrack’s return to Beirut is not a routine diplomatic visit. It is a moment of reckoning. Either Lebanon seizes the opportunity before it slips away, or it is left to face the unknown alone.