A high-level military meeting being prepared at the Pentagon later this month is shaping up to be far more than a routine security discussion on southern Lebanon, according to Lebanese military sources familiar with the talks.

The planned trilateral meeting involving Lebanese, U.S. and Israeli military officials is expected to focus not only on maintaining the ceasefire along the Lebanese-Israeli border, but also on the future security architecture of southern Lebanon, the role of the Lebanese Army, and the arrangements that could follow any broader political and security agreement.

While the format resembles previous meetings held in Naqoura under the U.S.-led ceasefire monitoring mechanism — which included Lebanese, Israeli, American, French and U.N. representatives — the upcoming Washington talks differ in both composition and scope. The Pentagon meeting has been limited to a direct trilateral U.S.-Lebanese-Israeli framework and, according to sources, marks a shift from managing border clashes to shaping the military realities of the postwar phase in southern Lebanon.

Lebanese military sources told Al-Modon the delegation will include, in addition to Lebanon’s military attaché in Washington, officers from the army command, the operations directorate, military intelligence, and the office of international humanitarian law.

The delegation is expected to arrive with more than operational observations. According to the sources, it will present a broader Lebanese vision for how any future political understanding would be implemented on the ground.

The sources said instructions for the delegation were prepared through direct coordination between President Joseph Aoun and Lebanese Army Commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal, based on recent negotiations and Lebanon’s assessment of the escalating situation in the south.

Aoun is said to be personally following the military-security track linked to the broader political negotiations launched by Lebanon in recent months. The president has stressed that any future arrangement must prioritize full Lebanese sovereignty over the south and reject any scenario that could institutionalize a prolonged Israeli occupation or create new military realities outside state authority.

According to the sources, Aoun also emphasized that the Lebanese Army must remain the sole legitimate force authorized to implement any future security arrangements, while avoiding dragging the military into an internal confrontation or assigning it roles that exceed its national mandate.

At the core of the discussions, Lebanese officials are expected to propose a clear formula: if the ceasefire is stabilized, Israel must proceed with a full withdrawal from southern Lebanon, paving the way for residents to return and reconstruction efforts to begin.

Under the proposal, the Lebanese Army would then fully deploy south of the Litani River, reestablish its positions and reinforce state control along the border region.

If a rapid Israeli withdrawal proves unattainable, Lebanese officials are expected to discuss phased arrangements allowing the army to gradually deploy in non-occupied areas first before expanding alongside any future Israeli pullback.

However, Lebanese military officials acknowledge that Israel’s approach goes beyond withdrawal alone. According to the sources, Israel is seeking extensive security guarantees and wants a fundamentally different southern Lebanon from the one that existed before the war.

Israeli officials, they said, are pushing for a de facto demilitarized zone and want assurances that Hezbollah will be militarily neutralized and prevented from rebuilding its military infrastructure south of the Litani River before any large-scale Israeli withdrawal.

The Pentagon meeting is therefore expected to focus on designing a new security framework for southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese Army positioned as the central field actor but operating under stringent American and Israeli conditions.

While the Lebanese Army is prepared to assume responsibility for restoring state authority south of the Litani River, the sources said the military firmly rejects becoming a tool for internal confrontation with Hezbollah or operating under an Israeli-American agenda.

Lebanese military officials are also said to oppose proposals — not formally announced but reportedly discussed by U.S. officials — involving the creation of a special military unit tasked specifically with disarming Hezbollah.

According to the sources, army leaders believe such a mission would exceed the institution’s political and national capacity and risk destabilizing its delicate internal balance.

At the same time, Lebanese officials stressed that any army redeployment in the south would aim to ensure the area becomes free of unauthorized weapons and armed presence until all arms outside Lebanese state authority are ultimately removed.

Military officials insist, however, that the army cannot wage an internal conflict under the banner of implementing international agreements, nor directly confront the local population in the south, warning that such a scenario would undermine the army’s role as a guarantor of national stability and transform it into a party in a domestic conflict.

Instead, the Lebanese delegation is expected to promote what officials describe as a gradual “step-for-step” approach: Israeli withdrawals would be matched by Lebanese military deployments, while tighter security measures south of the Litani would accompany each stage of army expansion.

According to the sources, Washington appears increasingly eager to establish a new security model in southern Lebanon, particularly amid growing U.S. conviction that no political agreement can survive unless backed by enforceable military arrangements on the ground.

American officials reportedly view the Lebanese Army as the only institution capable of filling any vacuum left by a potential Israeli withdrawal.

But the Lebanese sources said a major gap remains between U.S. priorities and Lebanese realities.

Washington approaches the issue primarily through the lens of Israeli security, while Lebanon views it as a matter of sovereignty and internal stability. Israel is seeking a prolonged testing period for any new arrangements and appears determined to retain control over certain occupied points as leverage, while Lebanon insists that any army deployment must coincide with a clear Israeli withdrawal timetable.

Lebanese officials believe the next phase will not produce a final settlement but rather inaugurate a prolonged and complicated process of managing southern Lebanon through incremental arrangements.

Under that framework, every Israeli withdrawal would be matched by expanded Lebanese military deployment, while each new deployment would come with stricter monitoring and enforcement mechanisms south of the Litani River.

The sources warned that southern Lebanon is gradually becoming a regional and international testing ground where competing interests intersect: the United States seeks guarantees for Israel’s security, Israel wants a southern border free of threats, Lebanon aims to restore state authority without igniting internal conflict, and the Lebanese Army finds itself navigating the center of those competing pressures.

For that reason, the planned Pentagon meeting is increasingly being viewed in Beirut as the beginning of a new phase that is intended to move Lebanon beyond ceasefire management and toward a broader reshaping of the postwar order in southern Lebanon.