Israel Withdrawal From Lebanon Corners Trump and Aoun

On Tuesday, Joseph Aoun takes Lebanon’s weakest hand to Donald Trump: a demand that the U.S. turn a paper deal on Hezbollah into an enforceable Israel withdrawal from Lebanon.

That is the real test beneath the diplomacy. Aoun will ask Trump to pressure Israel to implement a U.S.-brokered framework that would move Israeli forces out of “pilot zones” before a broader withdrawal, according to Newsweek World. If the deal disarms Hezbollah without producing a credible Israeli pullback, it risks looking like another arrangement where Lebanon absorbs the costs while stronger actors control the timetable.

Tuesday’s Trump meeting turns Israel withdrawal from Lebanon into Aoun’s sovereignty test

Lebanon and Israel announced the framework on June 26. Its stated aim is blunt: Lebanese state forces gradually take security control and dismantle Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, while Israeli forces withdraw in phases as conditions are met and verified.

Aoun’s visit to Washington is not just a diplomatic photo op. It is an attempt to convert U.S. mediation into U.S. pressure. Reuters, cited by Newsweek, reported that Aoun believes Trump has the leverage to push Israel to withdraw and help Lebanon restore sovereignty.

That word, sovereignty, does heavy work here. Israel has troops in a buffer zone along the border, in some areas up to six miles into Lebanese territory, according to Newsweek. Hundreds of thousands remain displaced in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese Armed Forces, or LAF, are being asked to become the central security actor in areas where Hezbollah has long held sway.

XOOMAR analysis: Aoun’s problem is that sovereignty has to be demonstrated twice. First to Israel, which wants proof Hezbollah cannot reconstitute near the border. Then to Lebanese citizens, who will judge whether their state can regain land without triggering internal collapse.

This follows the same pressure point we flagged in Israel Pullout Now Hangs on Joseph Aoun's Trump Talks: the deal’s credibility depends less on signatures than on visible movement on the ground.

June 26 created a sequencing trap: Hezbollah disarmament first, or Israeli pullback first

The framework depends on a fragile exchange. The LAF is supposed to assume security control and dismantle Hezbollah’s infrastructure. Israel is supposed to draw down from pilot zones, then withdraw more broadly if security conditions are met.

That sounds orderly. It is not.

Sami Halabi, director of the Beirut-based The Alternative Policy Institute, told Newsweek the framework is structured in a way that could fail and leave Beirut blamed.

“Israel is operating in bad faith—they know full well that these mechanisms haven't worked in the past,” he said.

Halabi’s critique centers on capacity. He said the LAF lacks the resources to do what it is being asked to do.

“Israel knows full well that the Lebanese Armed Forces are technically incapable of doing what they've been asked to do,” he said.

The risk is not abstract. Halabi warned that pushing the LAF into a confrontation with Hezbollah “would almost certainly lead to a breakup of the Lebanese armed forces (and) almost certainly lead to civil strife.”

Israel’s side frames the same issue differently. Brigadier General (Res) Yossi Kuperwasser, a former senior Israeli military intelligence officer and director of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told Newsweek the deal reflects the will of Beirut, Israel and Washington “to create a totally different situation in Lebanon, in which the monopoly over the use of force from its territory will come back to the government of Lebanon.”

XOOMAR analysis: the sequencing trap is the deal. Israel wants proof before leaving. Lebanon needs withdrawal to make state authority politically defensible. Hezbollah has dismissed the direct U.S.-brokered talks, according to the Associated Press via ABC News, and backs Washington’s talks with Iran instead. That leaves Aoun trying to sell a state-first security model while both armed rivals question the order of operations.

Monday’s pilot-zone announcement put three villages at the center of the deal

The most concrete test is now local. The U.S. State Department announced Monday that operations had begun in three villages deemed part of a “pilot zone,” according to the Associated Press. The villages are Froun, Srifa, and Zawtar al-Gharbieh.

AP reported that Froun and Srifa are not under Israeli military control and that the Lebanese army is present there, while Israeli forces are in part of Zawtar al-Gharbieh. The Lebanese army said it was preparing for Israel to withdraw from Zawtar al-Gharbieh and had begun deploying troops to the area Tuesday. The Israeli military said it “will adjust its force posture in one of the pilot areas in order to enable the Lebanese Armed Forces to carry out their mission,” without naming the location.

An Israeli military official told AP the withdrawal had not yet begun.

The humanitarian scale raises the stakes. Newsweek reported more than 4,300 people killed, citing Lebanon’s health ministry. AP reported over 4,000 killed and 1.2 million displaced. Newsweek also reported satellite imagery released in April showed Israel had leveled at least 1,400 buildings after Israeli foreign minister Israel Katz ordered on 22 March the destruction of Lebanese homes near the border to be accelerated based on the “model in Gaza.”

The IDF says it operates under the Law of Armed Conflict and does not destroy property unless there is imperative military necessity. It also says Hezbollah has embedded military infrastructure within civilian areas.

The 1978 to 2000 occupation comparison is the warning Aoun cannot ignore

The supplied record does not establish a detailed Resolution 1701 analysis, so the stronger comparison here is the one Newsweek’s sources actually make: Israel’s earlier presence in southern Lebanon from 1978 to 2000.

Israel says its current presence is temporary and necessary to prevent Hezbollah threats. Critics see echoes of the earlier occupation. Mireille Rebeiz, chair of Middle East Studies at Dickinson College, told Newsweek in May that today’s situation differs in destruction.

“One of the major differences between the 1978 occupation and today’s ‘yellow line’ is the level of destruction wreaked by Israel in south Lebanon,” she said.

Michael Young, a senior editor at the Malcolm H Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, told Newsweek Israel would like to link withdrawal to Hezbollah disarmament.

“If there isn't a disarmament of Hezbollah, then Israel will continue to hold this territory, as it did during the Lebanese Civil War up to the year 2000, which was also considered an occupation," he said.

The International Committee of the Red Cross told Newsweek it “considers that Israel remains in control of certain areas in southern Lebanon, and so the law of occupation applies in those areas.”

Kuperwasser rejects the occupation label in political intent.

“It's not an occupation in the sense that we have any intention to take over parts of Lebanon. We respect the sovereignty of Lebanon.”

He added that Israel is ready to redeploy once Lebanon proves it has regained control over the use of force from its territory and disarmed Hezbollah.

XOOMAR analysis: this is the core dispute. Israel defines temporariness by security conditions. Lebanon defines sovereignty by territorial withdrawal. Those clocks do not run at the same speed.

Rubio’s Sunday message gave Aoun support, but also raised the pressure on Beirut

Aoun met Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday. Rubio said Washington would continue to support the agreement’s full implementation and described the meeting as “very positive,” according to AP.

His warning was direct.

“How do you replace Hezbollah? You defeat and replace them with a government that is strong enough to be the sole force of arms in the country,” Rubio said.

Rubio also acknowledged that the file is not purely military.

“This is not just about military stuff," he added. "This is about how can we attract more U.S. and international investment into Lebanon.”

That matters because Lebanon’s government came to power in early 2025 on a reformist platform, pledging to disarm all non-state groups including Hezbollah. Aoun, a former LAF commander, pledged when sworn in last year to disarm Hezbollah, according to Newsweek. But after the March rocket fire by Hezbollah toward northern Israel following U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, Lebanon’s leadership accused Hezbollah of dragging the country into another war.

The same regional chain reaction also frames Washington’s wider role, as covered in our report on how U.S. airstrikes on Iran pushed the conflict into a new phase. Here, though, Aoun’s immediate need is narrower: security assistance, diplomatic guarantees, and a visible path to Israeli withdrawal.

For Lebanon’s economy, the meeting matters only if it lowers escalation risk

Rubio’s investment line points to the economic hinge in the security deal. Lebanon’s leadership says Israeli withdrawal and international financial support for the cash-strapped army are crucial for a sustainable security solution, according to AP.

That is not a side issue. If the LAF is expected to replace Hezbollah’s armed presence in the south, it needs capacity that matches the assignment. Halabi’s warning is that the army is being asked to act as the state “without the resources that you have.”

For households and businesses, the practical question is narrower than the diplomatic language: can the deal reduce the chance of renewed Israeli strikes, Hezbollah fire, and another displacement cycle? A durable Israel withdrawal from Lebanon would not by itself fix Lebanon’s economic crisis. But continued uncertainty in the south keeps reconstruction, donor confidence, and state authority hostage to military sequencing.

After Tuesday, the evidence will be in Zawtar al-Gharbieh, not the communique

The likely near-term test is not a grand peace announcement. It is whether Israel actually adjusts positions in a pilot area, whether the LAF can deploy without internal rupture, and whether Washington can keep both sides inside the June 26 framework.

Zev Faintuch, head of research and intelligence at Global Guardian, told Newsweek the moment is rare.

“This is a once in a generation diplomatic opportunity,” he said. “it's hard to say if there's going to be another Lebanese leader that's going to be this amenable—and if Hezbollah is going to be this weak in the future.”

The thesis is simple: Aoun can get a statement in Washington, but he needs a withdrawal sequence in southern Lebanon. Evidence that would strengthen the deal includes a confirmed Israeli pullback from Zawtar al-Gharbieh, expanded LAF control in pilot zones, and continued U.S. backing for Lebanese army capacity. Evidence that would weaken it includes stalled withdrawals, renewed strikes, or signs that the LAF is being forced into a confrontation it cannot sustain.

The Trump-Aoun talks may set the terms. The deal’s fate will be decided in the villages.

Impact Analysis

• Aoun’s Washington visit tests whether U.S. mediation can produce a real Israeli withdrawal.
• Lebanon risks weakening Hezbollah without regaining full control of its territory.
• The outcome will shape whether displaced southern Lebanese residents can return safely.