As U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack is set to arrive in Beirut, Lebanese authorities have finalized their response to a proposal from Washington addressing Hezbollah’s arms, border demarcation, and long-delayed reforms. But according to sources familiar with the matter, the reply stops short of committing to any explicit disarmament of Hezbollah north of the Litani River, a key demand of the U.S. and Israel.

Sources told Al-Modon that the reply risks reigniting a long-standing ambiguity: each side continues to interpret the ceasefire agreement differently. Hezbollah insists that Resolution 1701 applies only to the area south of the Litani River. In contrast, U.S. and Israeli officials argue that the resolution applies to all Lebanese territory and thus includes Hezbollah’s arsenal in the north.

Hezbollah’s position remains unchanged, the sources said: it is willing to discuss weapons only after Israel withdraws from five contested border points, including the Shebaa Farms and Kfarshuba Hills. Until then, party leaders are focused on safeguarding their military presence north of the Litani and resisting pressure to disarm.

Observers familiar with the Trump's administration’s stance on Hezbollah warn that if Lebanon fails to commit clearly to disarming the group, Washington could withdraw from its mediating role and block access to reconstruction funding. Such a move could leave the door open to an Israeli military response intended to pressure Beirut into compliance, possibly more severe than previous campaigns, 

Analysts say a new round of Israeli escalation could include airstrikes targeting suspected Hezbollah weapons caches or facilities located north of the Litani, including in Beirut’s southern suburbs. These attacks could extend to industrial zones, agricultural areas, and even remote valleys near riverbeds, mimicking tactics used in prior strikes.

There is also growing concern that Israel could intensify its campaign of assassinations targeting Hezbollah field operatives, senior officials, or political figures. Some experts have not ruled out the possibility that even the group’s secretary-general, Naim Qassem, could be placed in Israel’s crosshairs.

Despite the lack of a formal commitment, diplomatic sources say the U.S. may still show flexibility if it believes Lebanon is making a genuine effort. In this scenario, an informal mechanism could be established through the ceasefire monitoring committee, whereby suspected weapons sites north of the Litani would be flagged to the Lebanese Army for inspection.

Failure by the Army to act on such alerts, however, could be interpreted by Washington as tacit permission for Israel to strike those targets.

The sources also anticipate growing Israeli military pressure along the Lebanese-Israeli border, especially in areas where civilian life and local economies remain vulnerable. New waves of shelling and drone strikes could target homes, shops, factories, vehicles, and farmers in both the front-line and rear-line zones stretching along Lebanon’s southern frontier.