France and Jordan are set to bring senior military officials together in Paris on Sept. 17 in an effort to strengthen the capabilities of Lebanon’s army, a meeting seen as a renewed show of confidence in the country’s legitimate security institutions and an attempt to mobilize additional material, logistical and training support.

But Washington believes the optimistic rhetoric surrounding the meeting does not fully reflect realities on the ground, particularly the continued presence of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in southern Lebanon, according to U.S. sources cited by Nidaa Al-Watan.

The latest fighting around the Ali al-Taher heights near Nabatiyeh has underscored what U.S. officials describe as a central dilemma facing Lebanon: the Lebanese army has expanded its deployment in the south, but Hezbollah has shown little willingness to surrender its weapons to the state or coordinate its military structure with the Lebanese armed forces.

A U.S. diplomat said the army was currently focused on its designated deployment area, while a source familiar with the Pentagon’s assessment said the Israeli military presence in parts of southern Lebanon had exposed the scale of Hezbollah’s infrastructure and raised questions about whether the Lebanese army was prepared to replace a militia whose military strength it has never directly confronted.

The gap between Lebanon’s commitments to strengthen state authority and the reluctance to move toward Hezbollah’s disarmament is now a central concern for Washington, Paris and the Lebanese government as they discuss the future of the army and security arrangements in the south.

U.S. sources have criticized what they described as contradictory political rhetoric in Lebanon, arguing that Hezbollah’s weapons have not prevented destruction in the south and that the region has instead become a battleground where Iranian ambitions, Israeli security concerns and Lebanon’s institutional weaknesses intersect.

A U.S. State Department official told Nidaa Al-Watan that Hezbollah’s weapons had “brought nothing but misery and destruction to Lebanon” and that the group remained an obstacle to peace.

Washington is also following calls from communities in southern Lebanon urging the government to assert its authority and prevent Hezbollah from firing weapons or storing arms in residential areas, the official said.

A U.S. diplomat said the message was significant because some of those communities had traditionally supported Lebanon’s Shi’ite political parties but had been left to bear the consequences when their properties and livelihoods were used as part of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure.

The U.S. Embassy in Beirut has said southern Lebanon does not belong to regional actors or militias and has backed the Lebanese government’s efforts to extend state authority through the army.

U.S. officials, however, acknowledge that the situation is more complicated. They argue that the competing models of political and state authority in Lebanon are difficult to reconcile, while Hezbollah’s military structure remains a major obstacle to an Israeli withdrawal from areas where Israel says it faces security threats.

For Washington, a U.S.-sponsored framework remains the main avenue under discussion for a phased process aimed at restoring Lebanese sovereignty while addressing Israel’s security concerns.

The United States continues to regard the Lebanese army as an operational partner, including through U.S. Central Command, according to the sources.

But people familiar with the U.S. military assessment say Lebanon’s increased army presence in the south has not yet translated into meaningful steps toward Hezbollah’s disarmament.

The distinction is important, they say: the army’s expanded deployment may help maintain stability, but it does not necessarily amount to the establishment of full state sovereignty over the area.

A former Pentagon official said the main reason for the army’s weak performance was “not lack of resources, but will,” arguing that its operational and political mandate remained limited and, in some cases, deliberately constrained.

A diplomatic source said the army “was not instructed to move toward Ali al-Taher,” highlighting what the source described as the political constraints on the military’s operations.

The United States is therefore unlikely to oppose further assistance to the Lebanese army at the Paris meeting. But U.S. policy is increasingly linking future support to the army’s ability to carry out the role for which that support is intended, according to the sources.

That approach is also reflected in proposed legislation in Washington.

The “Lebanon Sanctions, Stabilization, and Support Act,” introduced in the U.S. Senate in August as S. 5356, would link pressure on Hezbollah with targeted support for Lebanese state institutions and assistance tied to tangible progress toward strengthening state sovereignty.

A former U.S. official said Washington was not asking the Lebanese army to trigger a civil war. But the official said Lebanese authorities continued to operate under the pressure of Hezbollah’s intimidation tactics and threats of renewed violence, describing that dynamic as an obstacle to meaningful state action.

The comments come as Lebanon faces several important diplomatic engagements.

The Paris conference on Sept. 17 will bring together military officials as Beirut seeks additional international support for its armed forces. At the same time, new U.S.-sponsored contacts between Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors are taking place in Washington, while political discussions are expected to continue around next week’s U.N. General Assembly.

For U.S. sources, the sequence offers Beirut another, but limited, opportunity to demonstrate that the Lebanese state can exercise authority on the ground before asking Washington to increase pressure on Israel for a timetable for withdrawal.

Otherwise, the sources say, Lebanon risks falling back into a familiar cycle in which international assistance increases while conditions on the ground remain largely unchanged, leaving southern civilians to bear the consequences of continued instability.