Lebanon’s political and security crisis is becoming increasingly complicated as the war between Israel and Hezbollah continues with no clear diplomatic path toward a ceasefire, a diplomatic source in Beirut said, warning that the conflict could push the country toward a dangerous new international phase.

The source said that there are currently no serious signs of a political or diplomatic opening that could lead to halting the fighting, despite efforts by countries friendly to Lebanon to launch negotiations aimed at easing the escalation.

“Contacts carried out by friendly countries with Lebanon in order to open a negotiating track have so far failed to achieve any breakthrough, whether at the Israeli or American level,” the source told the Lebanese newspaper Nidaa Al-Watan.

The lack of progress reflects what the source described as a shift in the international environment that previously governed earlier rounds of confrontation along the Lebanese front.

According to the source, both Israel and the United States now view the conflict through a different lens than during what was referred to as the “support war,” when Hezbollah entered the confrontation in 2024. Tel Aviv and Washington see Hezbollah’s involvement in the fighting alongside Iran as part of a broader strategic struggle.

Within that framework, Israel is approaching the conflict as an existential war rather than another limited round of hostilities, the source said. This approach helps explain Israel’s focus not merely on halting attacks but on weakening Hezbollah decisively by targeting its military capabilities as well as the weapons infrastructure and service networks that form the backbone of the group’s security and military influence.

The diplomatic source said Lebanese proposals put forward so far have failed to introduce meaningful new elements that could persuade the relevant parties to accept a ceasefire. Most of the proposals, the source said, essentially replicate the model of the cessation-of-hostilities agreement that followed the so-called 66-day war.

In the source’s view, that framework is no longer suited to the current conflict. International thinking about a potential solution now centers primarily on a single condition — the complete and comprehensive dismantling of Hezbollah’s military capabilities.

As a result, the source said, any proposal that falls outside that framework currently lacks political or diplomatic viability.

The source also warned against expectations circulating among some Lebanese political actors, particularly Hezbollah, that a possible halt to the broader confrontation between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other could automatically end the fighting on the Lebanese front.

“That assumption does not align with Israel’s assessment of the conflict,” the source said. According to the source, Israel links the cessation of military operations in Lebanon to achieving a clear objective: the military defeat of Hezbollah.

That objective, the source added, does not appear likely to change even if other fronts across the region were to calm down.

The source also revealed what he described as a “highly dangerous” scenario being discussed in diplomatic circles, involving the possibility that the Lebanese crisis could move into a more complicated international phase.

After political cover was lifted from Hezbollah’s military and security wings and they were considered outside the framework of state legitimacy, the source said that if the Lebanese state proves unable to enforce its own decisions regarding disarmament, the international community could act through the United Nations Security Council.

Some of the scenarios being discussed include the possibility of placing Lebanon under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. Such a move would elevate the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 to a far more binding level and could involve coercive political, economic, and possibly military measures to ensure compliance with international decisions.

The source said Lebanon now stands at an extremely dangerous crossroads, where the repercussions of the regional war intersect with internal political divisions and visible signs of state paralysis.

The country now faces a stark choice, the source said: either a successful political and diplomatic process that restores military decision-making to Lebanon’s state institutions, or a slide toward the internationalization of the crisis, with potentially profound consequences for the country’s sovereignty, security and long-term stability.