# Israel strikes Hezbollah despite the disarmament deal signed in Washington > On June 26, 2026, in Washington, Israel and Lebanon signed a trilateral framework agreement sponsored by the United States, intended to launch - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Analysis - Published: 2026-07-05 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/israel-frappe-le-hezbollah-malgre-l-accord-de-desarmement-signe-a-washington ## Introduction: peace on paper, war on the ground ### A framework deal meant to calm the Lebanese front On **June 26, 2026**, in **Washington**, **Israel** and **Lebanon** signed a trilateral framework agreement sponsored by the **United States**, intended to launch a process of **Hezbollah** disarmament and a gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern **Lebanon**. The text, hailed by American Secretary of State **Marc Rubio** as the first step toward a **lasting peace**, called for the establishment of two pilot zones where the Lebanese army was to progressively regain security control. But barely a week later, the agreement already looks shaky. On **July 2, 2026**, the Israeli military struck about ten **Hezbollah** sites in southern **Lebanon**, in retaliation for attacks targeting its soldiers stationed in the **security zone**. The strikes targeted the towns of **Bint Jbeil**, **Beit Yahoun**, **Kounine**, and **Baraachit**, according to a **Tsahal** statement. ### Netanyahu holds a hard line on the ground Prime Minister **Benjamin Netanyahu** personally reaffirmed, during a visit to Israeli troops stationed in southern **Lebanon**, that his country would not leave the zone as long as **Hezbollah** remained a threat. He urged **Iran** and **Hezbollah** to **leave the region**, asserting that the deal with **Beirut** would allow the two sovereign nations to build a reality of security and prosperity along their shared border. This firmness contrasts with the spirit of the agreement signed just days earlier, exposing the immediate limits of a text that rests entirely on the good faith of parties who continue fighting each other militarily on the ground. *I'm not surprised by this gap between showcase diplomacy and reality on the ground. An agreement signed in Washington is only worth what the security guarantees behind it are worth, and for now those guarantees remain largely theoretical against a Hezbollah that has never agreed to lay down its arms of its own free will.* ## The real content of the Washington deal ### A sequenced process with no binding timeline The framework agreement signed in late June calls for a **sequenced process**: the Lebanese army must first restore effective sovereign authority over the entire territory, before Israeli forces can gradually withdraw from the areas they have occupied in southern **Lebanon** since the offensive launched in **March 2026**. Two pilot zones have been designated to launch this Israeli withdrawal process, conditioned on verification of **Hezbollah**'s disarmament. The text, described as a **workable and conditional framework** by Israeli ambassador to the **United States** **Yechiel Leiter**, sets no precise, binding timeline for the full implementation of disarmament, leaving each party wide latitude to interpret the pace of execution. ### Hezbollah's immediate and unambiguous rejection As soon as the deal was announced, **Hezbollah** Secretary-General **Naim Qassem** called the text **null and void**, insisting that the memorandum of understanding signed between **Washington** and **Tehran** should be the only legitimate basis for ending the conflict. This uncompromising stance from the pro-Iranian Shiite movement shows that the deal, however symbolically important, never won the consent of the very actor most directly concerned by disarmament. Without **Hezbollah**'s own agreement, the **Washington** deal looks more like a bilateral arrangement between **Israel**, **Lebanon**, and the **United States** than a genuine solution negotiated with all warring parties on the ground. *You cannot build a lasting peace by excluding from the negotiating table the armed actor that controls a large part of the territory in question. This is a strategic no-brainer that Washington seems to have knowingly ignored, preferring to display a quick diplomatic success rather than negotiate a genuinely inclusive and durable solution.* ## The staggering human toll since March 2026 ### Numbers that induce vertigo Since the Israeli offensive was launched on **March 2, 2026**, in response to **Hezbollah** rocket fire following the assassination of Iranian supreme leader **Ali Khamenei**, the human toll in **Lebanon** has kept climbing. According to the **Lebanese Ministry of Public Health**, the cumulative death toll now stands at **4,297 people**, with **12,196 wounded**, a majority of them civilians. More than a million people have also been displaced by this Israeli military campaign, which intensified after the American-Israeli offensive against **Iran** launched in late February. These figures, verified by several international news agencies, illustrate the scale of a conflict that keeps claiming victims despite the signing of the framework agreement. ### Significant Israeli losses as well On the Israeli side, at least **32 soldiers** and **four civilians** have lost their lives since the start of this phase of the conflict, mainly in southern **Lebanon**. **Netanyahu** has also claimed that the Israeli military has eliminated roughly **9,000** **Hezbollah** fighters since operations began, a figure that cannot be independently verified but that speaks to the intensity of the fighting in the region. These considerable human losses, on both sides of the border, make any agreement lacking a robust and transparent verification mechanism all the more fragile and precarious. *Behind every statistic lies an individual human tragedy. I refuse to normalize these numbers in the name of some regional realpolitik: more than four thousand dead in Lebanon since March is not an acceptable collateral cost, it is a collective failure of international diplomacy to contain this escalation in time.* ## The Iranian dimension of the conflict ### A weakened but still active axis of resistance The Lebanese conflict cannot be understood in isolation from the broader confrontation between **Israel**, the **United States**, and **Iran**. **Hezbollah**, **Tehran**'s main regional proxy, continues to act as a forward front of what **Iran** calls its **axis of resistance**, despite the significant weakening of its military capabilities since the start of the Israeli offensive. According to statements by Israeli Defense Minister **Israel Katz**, **Hezbollah** still has roughly **12,000 rockets and missiles** in its arsenal, a stockpile that, though greatly reduced from prewar levels, remains sufficient to pose a credible threat to northern **Israel**. ### Persistent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz Alongside the fighting in **Lebanon**, tensions have also flared in the **Strait of Hormuz**, where drone strikes attributed to **Iran** targeted commercial vessels, prompting new American retaliatory strikes led by **CENTCOM**. This explosive regional climate further complicates any prospect of lasting de-escalation in **Lebanon**. President **Donald Trump** himself accused **Iran** of violating the ceasefire agreement signed with **Washington**, illustrating just how much the entire region remains under tension despite the multiple diplomatic frameworks signed in recent weeks. *On this specific point, I credit the Trump administration for maintaining a firm posture against Iranian provocations in the Strait of Hormuz. Responding forcefully to drone attacks on commercial vessels is the right approach against a regime that only understands raw power.* ## International reactions to this fragility ### The European Union welcomes the deal while staying cautious The **European Union** welcomed the Israeli-Lebanese framework agreement, explicitly backing the principle of **Hezbollah**'s disarmament as a precondition for lasting regional stabilization. But this European approval comes with real caution about the risk of renewed hostilities, with several analysts even raising the possibility of a new war should the disarmament process fail. This European stance once again illustrates the difficulty the **West** faces in truly influencing the course of events in the **Middle East**, where local dynamics and regional rivalries continue to dictate the pace of military developments far more than diplomatic frameworks signed thousands of kilometers away. ### A credibility test for American diplomacy For **Washington**, this deal also represents an important credibility test. If violations continue without tangible consequence, the ability of the **United States** to negotiate similar agreements on other regional files could be durably weakened, a major strategic stake for an administration that has made rapid resolution of regional conflicts one of its stated priorities. The **Military Coordination Group for Lebanon**, the trilateral mechanism set up to oversee the agreement's implementation, will be closely watched in the coming weeks to assess its real capacity to prevent further escalation. *I remain skeptical about this coordination mechanism's ability to truly change realities on the ground. Diplomatic monitoring committees, however well-intentioned, have historically never been enough on their own to disarm a militia that views weapons as the ultimate guarantee of its political survival.* ## Prospects for the Lebanese population ### Growing weariness in the face of a conflict with no apparent end For the Lebanese civilian population, this signing of an agreement, immediately followed by new strikes, feeds a deep sense of weariness and distrust toward all actors involved in this conflict. Protests have in fact broken out in several towns in southern **Lebanon** against the continued presence of Israeli troops and ongoing airstrikes, despite the signing of the framework deal. Lebanese Prime Minister **Nawaf Salam** tried to temper expectations, stating that this agreement represents more a basis for future negotiations than a definitive settlement of the conflict, while reaffirming **Beirut**'s commitment to placing all weapons under the exclusive authority of the Lebanese state. ### A country on the brink of economic and social exhaustion Beyond the human toll, the entire Lebanese economy is suffering from this chronic instability. Destroyed infrastructure, massive population displacement, and permanent security uncertainty continue to weigh heavily on a country already weakened by years of economic and political crisis predating the current conflict with **Israel**. This degraded humanitarian situation makes genuine stabilization all the more urgent, something the **Washington** agreement, in its current form, does not appear able to guarantee in the short term. *This may be the real tragedy of this sequence: while diplomats congratulate each other over a framework deal in Washington, the Lebanese population keeps paying the heavy price of a conflict that seems to drag on indefinitely, with no clear political resolution on the near horizon.* ## The role of the media in shaping perceptions of the conflict ### Uneven coverage shaped by geopolitical priorities International media coverage of this conflict remains marked by fluctuating attention, often overshadowed by other simultaneous crises such as the confrontation with **Iran** or the situation in **Gaza**. This scattering of international media attention complicates the mobilization of sustained, coherent diplomatic pressure on all parties to the Lebanese conflict. Local Lebanese news agencies, such as the **National News Agency**, play a crucial role in the daily documentation of strikes and incidents, often on the front line reporting events that major international outlets only cover in summary. ### The importance of cross-checking sources Faced with the proliferation of sometimes contradictory accounts between **Tsahal** statements and Lebanese reports, cross-checking sources becomes an indispensable exercise for anyone seeking to objectively understand the real evolution of the situation on the ground, beyond the partisan narratives circulated by each party to the conflict. This demand for journalistic rigor is all the more crucial in a conflict where disinformation and propaganda are themselves strategic weapons used by all regional protagonists. *In this column, as in all the others, I strive never to settle for a single official source, however credible it may be. The truth about this conflict likely lies somewhere between Israeli statements and Lebanese casualty counts, and it is precisely this cross-referencing work that must guide any serious analysis.* ## What this episode changes for the regional balance ### A show of Israeli force fully embraced Beyond the immediate fate of the framework agreement, this episode confirms Israel's determination to maintain unilateral military action capability in southern **Lebanon**, independent of diplomatic commitments made in **Washington**. This posture, which could be seen as a violation of the spirit of the agreement, fits within a decades-old Israeli security doctrine: never rely solely on external diplomatic guarantees to ensure one's own security. This approach, though understandable from an Israeli standpoint after years of **Hezbollah** attacks, nonetheless considerably complicates the long-term credibility of any international diplomatic mechanism meant to govern this type of regional conflict. ### Possible consequences for future negotiations in the region Should this agreement ultimately fail, the consequences could extend far beyond the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, weakening American credibility for future mediations on other sensitive regional files, particularly concerning **Iran** and its various regional proxies in **Yemen** or **Syria**. The international community, and in particular the Western powers aligned with Israeli and American interests in the region, will need to learn from this episode to build more robust and, above all, more verifiable disarmament agreements in the future. *We must stop believing that an agreement signed in the plush salons of Washington is enough to change realities on the ground in the Middle East. Without a robust verification mechanism and without genuine political will from all parties, including Hezbollah itself, these texts will remain empty shells regularly punctured by military reality.* ## Conclusion: a fragile deal that is not enough to guarantee peace ### A diplomatic text against a stubborn military reality The framework agreement signed in **Washington** in late June 2026 undeniably represents a significant diplomatic step, but the events of the first days of July show the persistent gap between stated intentions and the reality on the ground. As long as **Hezbollah** continues to reject the terms of this agreement and as long as **Israel** maintains its military presence in southern **Lebanon**, the prospect of a lasting peace will remain largely hypothetical. The coming weeks will be decisive in assessing whether this diplomatic framework can truly translate into concrete de-escalation, or whether it will remain just another cosmetic agreement in the troubled history of Israeli-Lebanese relations. ### A region still under the threat of broader escalation Within the wider context of a **Middle East** crossed by multiple fault lines, between tensions with **Iran**, the situation in **Gaza**, and now this fragile Lebanese ceasefire, Western vigilance must remain at its highest. The **West** cannot afford to let its attention lapse on this strategic region, or risk seeing the entire regional security architecture collapse rapidly. *I close this analysis with one certainty: peace in Lebanon is not decreed from a diplomatic lounge in Washington, it is built on the ground, with verifiable guarantees and political will from every party. We remain far from that, and it would be irresponsible to pretend otherwise.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - The Times of Israel, Tsahal strike against a Hezbollah operative — 2026 - The Straits Times, Israeli military statement on the July 2 strikes — July 3, 2026 ### Secondary sources - Caliber.az, European Union reaction to the framework agreement — 2026 - Al Jazeera, critical analysis of the Israeli-Lebanese agreement — July 1, 2026 - Reuters, Netanyahu's visit to southern Lebanon — June 30, 2026 - China Daily Asia, continued Israeli strikes despite the agreement — July 2, 2026 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/israel-frappe-le-hezbollah-malgre-l-accord-de-desarmement-signe-a-washington