U.S. officials have signaled that Lebanon’s commitment to “reciprocity” under a trilateral framework with Israel is increasingly tied to a more fundamental demand: that the Lebanese State become the country’s sole security authority by disarming Hezbollah.

The issue emerged as a key concern in talks between Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to U.S. sources cited by Nidaa Al-Watan newspaper, who said Hezbollah’s arsenal remained a direct obstacle to Lebanon’s ability to guarantee that its southern border would remain secure.

The Lebanese government cannot credibly ask Israel to regard the border as secure, the sources said, while allowing an armed group to retain the ability to make a unilateral decision on whether Lebanon enters a war.

Rubio reaffirmed Washington’s support for Lebanon’s legitimate institutions and stressed the need to move ahead with implementation of the trilateral framework, according to the sources.

While the language used publicly was diplomatic, the sources said Washington’s approach has evolved beyond simply preventing renewed fighting along the border. The United States is increasingly using military and diplomatic support, along with reconstruction-related leverage, to encourage the Lebanese state to establish exclusive security authority in the south and eventually across the country.

“The practical implication is clear,” one source said. “The United States is looking for concrete action from Lebanon, not just statements.”

Focus on army authority

Sources close to the Pentagon said Washington expects Lebanon to identify areas where the Lebanese army can deploy with meaningful authority, establish inspection, verification and reporting mechanisms, prevent the reestablishment of Hezbollah military facilities and demonstrate that state institutions control the security situation.

Washington sees those measures as necessary to advance both Lebanese sovereignty and Israeli security, the sources said.

That puts Salam’s call for a credible verification mechanism during his meeting with Rubio in a broader context. Such a mechanism, the sources said, should not simply monitor an Israeli withdrawal but also document compliance by all parties inside Lebanon.

U.S. officials have warned that verification could otherwise become another procedural mechanism that each side uses selectively.

Israel could point to Hezbollah’s remaining weapons to justify delaying its withdrawal, while Hezbollah could cite Israeli violations to defend retaining its arsenal. The Lebanese government could then find itself caught between competing claims.

The sources said this may have been the most consequential issue discussed at the meeting, even though it was not openly stated.

The government’s formulation of “placing weapons exclusively in the hands of the State” is diplomatically cautious, but its meaning is clear, they said. For Washington, support for the Lebanese army is no longer simply humanitarian or stabilization assistance.

Instead, U.S. support is increasingly aimed at facilitating a transfer of authority from Hezbollah’s armed apparatus to the Lebanese state. Any new U.S. support for reconstruction or security is therefore unlikely to be considered separately from that objective, according to the sources.

UNIFIL transition

The Salam-Rubio meeting also came as Lebanon confronts the planned reduction of the role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

The Lebanese side presented several ideas during the discussions, the sources said, but Washington appears to want the dispute over the southern Lebanon-northern Israel border to be addressed through the provisions of the trilateral framework.

No agreement has yet been reached on an alternative force to replace or assume UNIFIL’s role, the sources said. That could place greater responsibility on the Lebanese army as the international peacekeeping mission’s role changes.

The meeting therefore produced a narrow window for further action rather than a major breakthrough.