This was not the first time a Lebanese official had visited the White House and received support. But it was the first time that a president with the will and capacity to ensure Lebanon’s sovereignty had visited the White House. At the same time, Tuesday’s meeting between Joseph Aoun and President Donald Trump came against the backdrop of a US president having the courage and willingness to address Iran’s evil role in the region, facing it head-on, for the first time. So, beyond the positive relationship between the two presidents and Aoun being able to “have anything he wants,” there is a great window of opportunity for Lebanon here.

Now, we need to put things into perspective. If Lebanon might today be capable of regaining its sovereignty, it is because Israel obliterated Hezbollah. The pundits can spin this any way they want, such as by stating that Hezbollah is still there — but it is nowhere near its past power. Without the military action by Israel against Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, it would have been impossible to conceive that Lebanon has the potential to regain its sovereignty.

While Aoun highlighted the importance of an Israeli withdrawal in order for any resistance movement to stop, he also mentioned that Hezbollah is Lebanese and highlighted the Iranian influence. But there will not be a chicken-and-egg scenario. The mechanism is clear with the pilot zones. There is a clear path for Lebanon to regain control over its territory from both Iran and Israel.

This positive meeting can be aligned with the meetings Trump had with the Iraqi prime minister and the Syrian leader. The US obviously wants to reduce Iran’s influence and, to different extents, the three leaders are aligned with this goal. But how will it be achieved?

Also, can the Lebanese situation be compared to the disarming of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as FARC, or the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, as Aoun mentioned in one of his speeches in Washington? This would mean an agreement from Hezbollah to surrender its arsenal to the state willingly. I have my doubts, but I still ask: what would make this happen?

If nothing happens on the ground in Lebanon, the country will stay on its current trajectory. It is clear Aoun envisions a negotiated, phased process rather than an immediate disarmament. This is what is expected in the proposal aimed at avoiding internal instability, while reaffirming that only the Lebanese state should possess arms. I can honestly state that I do not know how this would happen in the long term. With agendas changing and timelines slipping, I am worried that this strategy could leave Lebanon in an eternal status quo.

If we take the FARC example that Aoun mentioned, the 2016 peace agreement was made possible not only by military pressure and negotiations but also by broader regional changes in South America, mainly the decline of revolutionary movements and the end of Cold War-era ideological conflicts. By using this example, Aoun is indirectly stating there is a need for regional change for this plan to work.

The key difference here is Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm and the IRGC’s unwillingness to give it an order to do so. There is little chance of Hezbollah voluntarily surrendering its arsenal. While any logical plan would imply the gradual deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces into areas under Hezbollah’s influence, the transfer of security responsibilities to the state, and the eventual decommissioning of Hezbollah’s heavy weapons — including missiles, rockets, drones, and military infrastructure — how can this happen if Hezbollah refuses?

In short, Aoun had a very successful US visit. He cannot and should not miss this opportunity. This means Lebanon must deliver. It is now the country’s turn to finish the job and get rid of Hezbollah. The head of the military keeps repeating that this would break the army and the country. Whether this is true or false, the result will be the same. To keep America’s support, Lebanon will have to move forward and regain sovereignty over the entirety of its territory.

I do not believe that Hezbollah will disarm willingly. Hence, amid the army’s lack of readiness, if direct action is taken it will only be done in collaboration with Israel and/or Syria, as Trump has been suggesting. This reality also highlights that it was Israel’s strikes that allowed Lebanon to dare mention officially disarming all nonstate militias and planning for a return to sovereignty.

Aoun is trying to avoid at least one of these scenarios. But a gradual plan carries the risk of stalling if nothing changes regionally or if international agendas and priorities shift. Previous examples have shown that solely relying on international pressure is not viable. The West lacks the commitment Hezbollah has from the IRGC.

The ongoing confrontation between the US and Iran could trigger a regional shift and I believe that this time it might. Yet Lebanon has been left behind too many times, like an elevator stuck halfway up. The real test of sovereignty is whether Lebanon can take the lead and work with international partners to achieve the disarmament of Hezbollah without waiting for regional changes.