The United States has informed both Lebanon and Israel that it will not deploy American troops in southern Lebanon to monitor implementation of the proposed “pilot zones” arrangement, a decision that has intensified a dispute over who will oversee the next phase of the Lebanese-Israeli framework agreement, Lebanese political sources told Erem News.

According to the sources, Washington has made its position unequivocally clear ahead of a new round of U.S.-mediated talks in Rome, where technical teams from both sides are expected to focus on the mechanisms for implementing the agreement south of the Litani River.

The U.S. administration has told Beirut and Tel Aviv that it prefers to manage the process through liaison officers based in Beirut and Tel Aviv who are linked to U.S. Central Command, rather than by deploying ground forces that could become targets for attacks.

The decision reflects a broader American effort to avoid direct military involvement during what officials consider the most sensitive stage of the new security arrangements in southern Lebanon.

The 1983 Beirut Bombing

The sources said the U.S. decision is driven not only by current security risks but also by broader strategic considerations aimed at avoiding any situation in which American troops could become directly involved in clashes with Hezbollah or other Iran-aligned groups.

That approach remains deeply influenced by the legacy of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 American service members and remains one of the deadliest attacks ever carried out against U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Deploying U.S. forces in southern Lebanese villages would also provide Hezbollah with political ammunition to portray the presence as an “American occupation,” something Washington is seeking to avoid, according to the sources.

Instead, the United States believes the mission can be managed through coordination officers, satellite surveillance, reconnaissance assets, and drones, achieving the same objective without exposing American personnel to the risks of operating in an exceptionally complex security environment.

Search for a Third-Party Monitor

With the U.S. option ruled out, negotiations have shifted to the more complicated question of which third party will monitor areas vacated by Israeli forces and handed over to the Lebanese Army.

Lebanon continues to favor the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), arguing that the peacekeeping force’s long-standing presence and operational experience in southern Lebanon make it the most suitable candidate, provided an international decision allows it to continue under a revised mandate.

Israel has rejected that proposal, contending that UNIFIL failed over the years to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its military infrastructure south of the Litani River and opposing any expansion of the force’s authority under the new monitoring mechanism.

Italy has emerged in recent days as the strongest alternative candidate to lead a neutral monitoring team, either independently or as part of a limited European force. The sources said Rome’s role as host of the negotiations, its balanced relations with both Beirut and Tel Aviv, and its long experience within UNIFIL have strengthened its position.

Other options under discussion include a multinational European mission or an expanded role for unarmed U.N. observers, although none of the proposals has yet won final approval from all parties.

Sovereignty vs. Security

The disagreement over the identity of the monitors reflects a broader divide between Lebanon and Israel over the next phase of the agreement.

Lebanon insists that any verification process must remain fully coordinated with the Lebanese Army and operate within the framework of Lebanese sovereignty, rejecting any arrangement that would grant foreign personnel independent search or inspection powers on Lebanese territory.

Israel, by contrast, is demanding a monitoring mechanism with genuine authority to verify the removal of military sites and weapons depots and to prevent Hezbollah from reestablishing positions in the areas covered by the agreement.

Hezbollah has remained publicly silent on the identity of any potential monitoring force, but its statements in recent months have consistently rejected any new foreign presence that could, in its view, serve as an intelligence or security cover benefiting Israel or the United States.

Rome Talks Face Their Toughest Test

The political sources said the question of the third-party monitor is expected to become the most difficult issue on the agenda during the upcoming Rome negotiations, alongside discussions over the format of the talks themselves after the Lebanese Army reportedly rejected any arrangement that would place its officers in direct meetings or photographs with Israeli military officers.

Although the parties have made progress in agreeing on the principle of the pilot zones, the next phase now hinges on a single unresolved question: who will have the authority to verify compliance on the ground?

With Washington refusing to deploy troops, Israel opposing a larger UNIFIL role, and Lebanon insisting on preserving its sovereignty, negotiators are now searching for a third party that can earn the confidence of all sides while possessing the credibility and operational capacity to prevent the pilot zones from becoming a new flashpoint in southern Lebanon.