Lebanon’s government is facing mounting challenges. It is trying to balance the demands of the US to disarm Hezbollah, a militia and political party controlling much of the country, against those of Iran, Hezbollah’s main sponsor, to do no such thing. For a government that took power only recently after years of political vacuum, as well as for the country as a whole, this is a critical test of sovereignty.

The Cabinet voted this month, after much contention, to return a complete monopoly over arms to the state. But implementing this decision is not so easy, and the matter is complicated by the fact that Israeli soldiers remain stationed as foreign invaders on Lebanese soil, despite international calls for them to depart.

In Beirut on Monday, the US envoy Tom Barrack said: “I think the Lebanese government has done their part. They’ve taken the first step. Now what we need is Israel to comply with that equal handshake."

But despite the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon that has been in place since November, Israel continues to attack parts of its northern neighbour almost daily. Just last week, the Israeli army chief Lt Gen Eyal Zamir boasted on his visit to Israeli troops in southern Lebanon about breaching the truce 600 times.

While huge numbers of Lebanese today distrust Hezbollah for very good reason, not least of which includes its decision to start a war with Israel in 2023, the longer Israeli troops remain, the greater the chances are of Hezbollah regaining some popular support among communities affected by Israeli occupation. There is a finite window, in all likelihood, for disarmament to take place, and for the Lebanese state to have a stronger future. The latter point is apparently of little concern to Ali Larijani, Iran’s top security official, who was in Beirut just before Mr Barrack and threatened that tampering with Hezbollah’s arsenal was not an option.

As it continues to muster the courage and support needed to stand up to such interference, the government in Beirut seeks support in strengthening the Lebanese Armed Forces. Hezbollah has, for many years, operated as a state within a state, with its own economy, military, political machinery and social welfare net. In the context of the corruption and chaos that characterised Lebanese politics for so long, this was an unexceptional – though still appalling – state of affairs. Now, it ought to be intolerable if the country is to meet its long-held potential as a cultural and economic powerhouse for the region.

Lebanon’s ally, the US, should see this potential, too, and help realise it. It has devoted much effort to pushing Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, and now it must press Israel with equal passion to stick to its end of the agreement, withdraw its forces and end its campaign of violence in the country.

Armed factionalism and foreign occupation have been the undoing of Lebanon several times over in the country’s young history. Now, it is time for a new chapter.