As U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack visits Lebanon with a trademark diplomatic smile and carefully worded reassurances that the final decision rests with the Lebanese, a more complex reality lies beneath the surface: the fate of Hezbollah’s weapons has become the focal point of international engagement, even if not explicitly stated.

Speaking at the presidential palace in Baabda, Barrack chose flexible, non-imposing language.

“We are not imposing anything. The decision is yours. We are only here to help,” he said.

But beneath this seemingly soft tone lies a different reality.  

According to information obtained by kataeb.org, Lebanon’s official response to the U.S. proposal included agreement to a southern buffer zone and reaffirmation that all weapons must be under the exclusive control of the state. However, the response avoided any direct mention of Hezbollah’s arsenal and failed to outline a clear timeline or actionable plan to address the issue.

The document, presented by President Joseph Aoun, appeared balanced in tone but fell short of addressing the root of the crisis. While the roadmap reiterated Lebanon’s call for the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and demanded Israel’s withdrawal from five disputed border points, it offered no clear strategy for disarming Hezbollah or a realistic mechanism for doing so. Washington reportedly sees this position as no longer internationally acceptable, arguing that a state which does not fully control decisions of war and peace cannot truly claim to be sovereign.

While political ambiguity persists in Beirut, Israel is making its intentions clear through steady, on-the-ground action. Eyewitnesses told kataeb.org that the Israeli military is continuing to fortify a recently constructed outpost on Hammams Hill, south of the Lebanese town of Adaisseh and near the Blue Line. Witnesses reported seeing concrete blocks and steel structures being used to reinforce the site, with nighttime drilling and heavy daytime bulldozer activity—clear signs of preparations for a prolonged presence in the area.

Hammams Hill is one of the most strategically sensitive points along the border, overlooking Lebanese homes and farmland. Its militarization has heightened fears among local residents and reinforced their sense of living under constant threat. According to media reports, this move is part of a broader Israeli strategy to establish permanent border monitoring posts across southern Lebanon in order to secure Israel’s northern settlements and closely track any activity on the Lebanese side.

In this increasingly volatile landscape, southern Lebanon is becoming an open arena for overlapping political messages and military maneuvers. As Israel takes calculated steps to reshape the situation on the ground, Lebanon continues to lack a decisive national position on the issues of arms and borders, deepening concerns that, in the absence of clarity, others will define the future for it.