Efforts to resolve the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon have, for now, narrowed to the prospect of a domestic political settlement centered on rebuilding state authority, after ceasefire negotiations stalled due to preconditions, a deep lack of trust, and the linkage of the Lebanese file to broader talks involving Iran, Western sources tracking the diplomatic process told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Proposals previously put forward by Lebanon’s leadership have failed to gain traction with Israel, which continues to insist on the emergence of a functioning Lebanese State capable of preventing rocket fire and resolving the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons. Hezbollah, meanwhile, has tied any resolution in Lebanon to developments in negotiations related to Iran.

Despite the fact that neither side fundamentally rejects the mechanisms needed to end the conflict, international observers say the main obstacle remains how to bring both parties to the negotiating table without preconditions. The United States is currently the sole active channel mediating between Lebanon and Israel, the sources said, adding that even limited talk of negotiations is viewed as a positive sign. However, they stressed that preconditions continue to block meaningful progress.

The sources underlined the need to build mutual understanding between the two sides by moving forward without imposing prior conditions and by creating space for more favorable circumstances, including de-escalation or a halt in hostilities.

Lebanon maintains that a ceasefire and a full Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory must come before any broader negotiations. Israel, in contrast, has told mediators it expects to see a functioning Lebanese state that enforces a monopoly over arms and decision-making on war and peace, effectively ending Hezbollah’s military role.

Israeli officials have conveyed to international intermediaries that they have no territorial ambitions in Lebanon, but seek a neighboring state that exercises full control over its territory, prevents cross-border attacks, and ensures the safety of communities in northern Israel. At the same time, they argue that achieving such a framework requires negotiations, effectively pushing Lebanon toward talks even as fighting continues.

Time remains a critical constraint. Israeli demands for negotiations under fire clash with the reality that building an effective Lebanese state would take years. This raises the possibility that Israeli forces could maintain a presence in Lebanese territory as long as Hezbollah’s military status remains unresolved.

Observers note that Hezbollah’s position in Lebanon is rooted in decades of political legitimacy granted by the State, as well as support within parts of the population that view the group as a source of protection. These factors complicate any rapid internal resolution, particularly given years of weakened state institutions and the emergence of parallel power structures.

The regional dimension adds further complexity. Hezbollah appears to be counting on the possibility that any ceasefire involving Iran could extend to Lebanon. Western sources described that assumption as a “serious miscalculation,” noting that while the two arenas are closely linked, any agreement with Iran is unlikely to automatically apply to Lebanon. Israel, they said, rejects such linkage and is expected to continue its campaign until it neutralizes what it sees as threats from non-state actors.

Waiting for a broader regional settlement could prolong the conflict or leave Lebanon’s fate tied to unpredictable developments in the Iranian file.

“If we want to get closer to a solution, we need to start negotiations and focus on building the state,” the sources said.

In this context, Western officials see no viable alternative to a domestic political settlement that would enable the Lebanese State to fulfill its responsibilities. Such a path would require a comprehensive national dialogue to address key issues, rather than placing the burden solely on the Lebanese army, which faces funding shortages, equipment constraints, and mounting pressure from multiple sides.

The sources stressed that the State must move forward in rebuilding its institutions, convincing citizens of its approach and reassuring them, without relying on external actors. They warned against further delays, noting that Lebanon has already lost decades to inaction, including the 15 months following the ceasefire agreement reached on November 26, 2024, before the latest escalation triggered by Hezbollah’s involvement in the Iran-linked conflict earlier this month.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian toll continues to mount. The war has displaced around 1.2 million people, many of whom are receiving limited support amid growing internal tensions. With no active negotiation channels and no clear timeline for de-escalation, the conflict appears likely to drag on.

No concrete proposals have emerged for security arrangements that could establish safe zones shielded from bombardment, which might allow displaced civilians to return to their homes in southern Lebanon or Beirut’s southern suburbs. U.S. pressure has so far succeeded in keeping Beirut’s Rafik Hariri International Airport out of the conflict, but has failed to protect other State infrastructure, including bridges whose destruction has effectively isolated areas south of the Litani River.