As the third round of direct talks between Lebanon and Israel got underway on Thursday at the U.S. State Department in Washington, the opening session quickly revealed a deeper challenge: whether the two sides can even agree on the basic structure of the negotiating process itself.

The meeting began at 9 a.m. Washington time (4 p.m. in Beirut), with delegations from Lebanon, Israel and the United States taking part in U.S.-mediated discussions aimed at laying the groundwork for a broader diplomatic track.

The Lebanese delegation was led by Ambassador Simon Karam, joined by Lebanon’s ambassador to Washington Nada Hamadeh Mouawad, chargé d’affaires Wissam Boutrous, and military attaché Oliver Hakmeh. The Israeli delegation was led by Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, alongside Deputy National Security Adviser and senior army intelligence official Amichai Levin. The U.S. side included Mike Needham, adviser to the Secretary of State, as well as U.S. ambassadors to Lebanon and Israel, Michel Issa and Mike Huckabee.

According to American officials cited by Nidaa Al-Watan newspaper, mediators focused on narrowing the wide gap between Lebanese and Israeli positions, with the goal of producing a declaration of intent that could structure future negotiations. Such a document, they said, would allow technical committees to work through unresolved issues and potentially open the door to a longer-term peace framework.

Diplomatic sources said Thursday’s political discussions were broad, centered on principles rather than binding commitments. A declaration of intent guiding later talks on border demarcation, withdrawal arrangements, monitoring mechanisms, and future ceasefire implementation would, they said, represent a meaningful breakthrough, particularly if it helps decouple the Lebanese-Israeli file from wider regional tensions involving the United States and Iran.

Friday’s security-focused session is expected to address more sensitive operational questions, including who would be responsible for enforcing any eventual agreement. Discussions are also likely to examine the role of the existing monitoring “mechanism committee” and whether its mandate could be expanded to strengthen ceasefire oversight.

While the overall objectives of the talks are well established, diplomats acknowledge that immediate progress remains limited. U.S. State Department sources, cited by the newspaper, said the effort is not simply about extending a fragile ceasefire, but about testing whether Lebanon can reassert sovereign control over Hezbollah, and whether Israel can be assured that security can be achieved through state-to-state arrangements rather than ongoing military pressure.

American diplomats describe the most realistic outcome as the beginning of a broader framework rather than a final agreement. The real significance, they say, lies in Washington’s effort to transform a fragile truce into the opening phase of a wider diplomatic architecture. In that context, the best-case scenario would be a roadmap outlining what one official called an “initial structure” for a future settlement on civilian matters, alongside separate negotiations on security arrangements.

Officials emphasized that this division between political and security tracks is not merely procedural, but reflects the central contradiction in the current moment. Lebanon is seeking a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal, yet its state institutions still lack the capacity—and in the view of some Israeli officials, the will—to enforce a monopoly over arms. The core challenge, they said, is to “square the circle”: meeting Lebanese demands for de-escalation while convincing Israel that its northern border will not remain exposed to attacks originating beyond Lebanese state control.

In this context, Hezbollah remains the unavoidable focal point of the negotiations, a reality that continues to shape Israel’s rigid security demands even as the diplomatic framework expands.

Lebanese officials, for their part, have presented their approach as a parallel-track model. Diplomacy, they argue, can only move forward if it is treated as running alongside, not in competition with, the military reality on the ground. One track would address Israeli concerns over weapons outside state authority, while a second would focus on Lebanese demands, including Israeli withdrawal, prisoner releases, border demarcation, reconstruction, and the return of displaced residents. Under this framework, the objective is not to choose between sovereignty and security, but to advance both simultaneously.

Despite the difficulty of Thursday’s discussions, sources said the proposals on the table carried political weight in that they attempt to reconcile two realities often seen as contradictory: the presence of armed actors outside full state control in Lebanon, and the role of ongoing Israeli strikes as a key driver of instability. Lebanon, they added, is advancing the concept of “operational control,” intended to gradually expand until it evolves into a full state monopoly on arms.

Still, broader strategic assessments suggest that such synchronization will be difficult to achieve. U.S. and Israeli intelligence evaluations remain skeptical of Lebanon’s ability to dismantle Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in the near term. At the same time, Washington’s framing of the talks indicates it views the process as more than a technical border negotiation, but as part of a wider regional effort shaped by competing pressures on both Lebanon and Israel.

Officials caution that the process carries significant risks. It could prompt Hezbollah to escalate activity along the border or trigger internal instability in Lebanon, while overly aggressive Israeli actions could, in turn, lead Lebanese authorities to withdraw from the talks altogether.