Washington is moving toward a new approach to the long-running challenge of disarming Hezbollah, seeking to avoid a direct confrontation between the group and the Lebanese army while gradually expanding State control over areas currently under Hezbollah influence.

Under the emerging approach revealed by Erem News, the process would proceed along two parallel tracks. The first would allow the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to gradually expand into selected areas, while the second would leave Israel to continue striking Hezbollah weapons and military infrastructure that the Lebanese state is unable to reach.

Lebanese political sources told Erem News that officials in Beirut, U.S. envoys who have recently visited Lebanon and independent military figures broadly rule out a direct army-Hezbollah confrontation.

Instead, they favor what the sources described as a gradual, negotiated and consensual process aimed at reducing Hezbollah's influence one area at a time.

According to sources familiar with recent discussions between Lebanese officials and representatives of the Trump administration, Washington is considering expanding the pilot-zone model during the remaining months of 2026.

Additional villages could be included, particularly those in areas from which Israeli forces withdraw or where Hezbollah does not have a major military presence.

The objective would be to give the Lebanese army a chance to demonstrate that it can establish state control without triggering an internal conflict.

The approach follows Washington's current emphasis on the pilot zones as the mechanism for gradually transferring territory to Lebanese state control. The first phase has already involved coordination between Lebanese, Israeli and U.S. representatives, with the Lebanese army preparing to deploy in areas after Israeli withdrawal.

The latest U.S.-mediated talks in Rome moved beyond broad political principles into technical issues, including maps, clearing operations and verification procedures. Discussions have also included the possible involvement of a third international party to verify that areas handed over to the Lebanese army are free of Hezbollah weapons and military infrastructure.

Italy, Britain, Germany, Indonesia and several Scandinavian countries have been discussed as possible participants, although no final arrangement has been reached.

The emerging strategy amounts to an acknowledgment that a nationwide disarmament operation cannot easily be imposed by force.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has described the process as one that will not happen “overnight,” with the expansion of Lebanese army control expected to gradually reduce both the territory under Hezbollah's influence and the areas where Israeli forces remain deployed.

The most difficult part of the process, according to Lebanese sources, lies north of the Litani River.

Hezbollah is believed to retain the bulk of its weapons arsenal there, particularly in the area between the Litani and Awali rivers and farther inland toward Nabatieh and the Bekaa Valley. The group has resisted surrendering those capabilities.

Under the emerging U.S.-backed formula, Israel would effectively remain responsible for striking or dismantling military facilities that the Lebanese army cannot reach. Control of the territory would then eventually pass to the Lebanese military.

The approach coincides with Israel's continued strikes on Hezbollah infrastructure and its reluctance to carry out broader withdrawals without assurances that the group's military capabilities have been dismantled.

The first pilot zones have also exposed the difficulties involved. Sensitive locations, including the area around Beaufort Castle and the Ali al-Taher heights, remain obstacles to expanding the model.

The military strategy is being accompanied by an economic component.

According to Lebanese sources, the Trump administration is expected to increase pressure on Beirut as U.S. military and financial support for the Lebanese army grows. The underlying premise is that greater support for the army should be matched by a tangible expansion of state authority in areas where Hezbollah has traditionally held sway.

Rubio has previously argued that strengthening Lebanon's government and army is the best way to counter Hezbollah, allowing state institutions to provide security and prosperity to residents rather than leaving those functions to Hezbollah and Iran.

The strategy also links stronger state institutions to the prospect of attracting U.S. and international investment.

Washington is considering directing reconstruction funding toward the pilot zones, particularly Shiite towns that gradually come under government control, according to the sources.

The goal would be to create a state-backed economic and social model capable of competing with Hezbollah's extensive network of social and financial services.

Political researcher Mazen Bilal said the approach represents a broader shift in the way Washington views the Hezbollah issue.

Rather than seeking the group's immediate disarmament, the strategy focuses on gradually dismantling the geographic, social and economic environment that enables it to maintain and rebuild its influence.

“Washington has realized that pushing the army into a direct confrontation with Hezbollah could backfire and weaken the state itself,” Bilal told Erem News. “That is why the effort is focused on reducing Hezbollah's geographic, social and economic influence, alongside Israeli military pressure.”

The success of the strategy, Bilal said, will depend heavily on what the Lebanese state does after taking control of an area.

The government must be able to provide security, reconstruction and basic services quickly, he said, warning that removing Hezbollah's weapons from a village while leaving residents amid destroyed homes and infrastructure could allow the group to regain influence through its community networks.