Diplomatic and Lebanese security sources say international discussions have resurfaced on a British-proposed plan to contain Hezbollah’s weapons, modeled on the disarmament of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Erem News reported. The proposal outlines a gradual, multi-year approach aimed at reducing tensions, curbing the group’s independent military capabilities, and maintaining Lebanon’s political stability.

The British plan is reportedly not based on forced disarmament or rigid deadlines. Instead, it envisions a phased approach that reframes Hezbollah’s arsenal from an “explosive sovereignty issue” into a politically manageable file. Measures would include establishing calm, gradually limiting and freezing weapons use, and ultimately ending Hezbollah’s independent military role. Lebanese political sources emphasize that the plan relies on guarantees and a long-term timeline, allowing the group to save face and reposition strategically.

Hezbollah sources told Erem News that the plan is not viewed internally as a realistic negotiation framework, but rather as a tool to ease international pressure and provide Lebanon with diplomatic leverage. The group reportedly perceives any IRA-style model as a potential threat to its military independence. Party leadership is said to favor a cautious, step-by-step approach: no unilateral withdrawals or site handovers without security guarantees and a comprehensive political framework. Some limited adjustments to field presence could be tolerated, but full disarmament remains off the table.

Domestically, Lebanese political observers say two currents are emerging. One backs the British plan as “the maximum feasible option,” arguing that gradual containment offers the only realistic path to prevent internal conflict while enabling the state to gradually reclaim authority. The other opposes it, warning that it would give Hezbollah time to regroup while leaving Israel free to strike, leaving Lebanon caught between external pressure and internal paralysis.

International sources describe the approach as a pragmatic compromise: while the weapons issue must ultimately be addressed, it must be done through a realistic, phased process that reduces the risk of conflict and gives Lebanon the space to rebuild state authority before tensions escalate.

The discussions come amid a stalled Mechanism process, whose meetings have been suspended. Both Lebanese and Israeli officials reportedly agree that the committee has not achieved its intended objectives: Lebanon believes it has failed to prevent attacks, while Israel sees little impact on Hezbollah’s weapons north of the Litani River.

To maintain minimal stability, planners are reportedly considering dividing the area north of the Litani into two zones. A narrow strip along the river would be transparent to Israel and considered a “line of open fire,” where the Lebanese Army would gradually begin operations. The broader area between the Litani and Awali rivers would be addressed later under undisclosed arrangements designed to prevent field-level escalation before a political settlement is reached.

Officials say there is a push to revive the Mechanism at a strictly military level, allowing limited coordination on hotspots while avoiding political gridlock. Security sources note that the primary challenge is not army deployment, but whether Hezbollah will agree to hand over sites, provide maps, or permit the removal of equipment. To date, responses have been limited, prompting temporary “engineering solutions” rather than comprehensive measures.