Lebanon’s president said on Tuesday, alongside US President Donald Trump in Washington, that his country’s ultimate objective is to end the state of hostility with Israel once and for all.
The statement – made during the first White House visit by a Lebanese president since 2009 – capped a months-long process in which Joseph Aoun publicly called for direct negotiations with Israel so the Lebanese could “live in peace.”
On June 26, the two countries signed a US-brokered framework for “lasting peace and security,” which Aoun called historic.
Many Israelis have yet to recognize the historic change unfolding in Lebanon – a change made possible largely by Hezbollah’s decline, which until recently held Lebanon in its grip, has lost its longtime leader, much of its military strength, revenue, and political influence, as well as its strategic depth in Syria.
One result was Aoun’s election in January 2025, after a two-year presidential vacancy prolonged largely by Hezbollah’s obstruction. His election demonstrated that Hezbollah could no longer impose its preferred candidate or veto one it had once considered unacceptable.
Aoun did not merely inherit this moment. During his years as commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces, he built close ties with the United States and key European governments, on which both the military and the wider Lebanese state depend heavily. Under Lebanon’s sectarian system, the presidency is reserved for a Maronite Christian.
Aoun's victory a cause for US optimism
Aoun’s election, facilitated in part by strong Saudi involvement, generated considerable optimism amid the devastation left by the war. Washington shared that optimism, praising his “courage and vision.”
Aoun remains cautious. The 2005 assassination of Rafic Hariri – for which a UN-backed tribunal convicted a Hezbollah operative – demonstrated the risks faced by Lebanese politicians who challenge the organization.
That history helps explain both his refusal to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the calibrated manner in which he has confronted Hezbollah: challenging its dominance without seeking to exclude it entirely from politics or provoke an uncontrolled showdown.
Hezbollah still retains the ability to intimidate Lebanon’s political institutions, though far less effectively than before. Aoun must also avoid appearing to replace subordination to Iranian dictates with subordination to Israeli demands.
Even so, Aoun has gone further than any Lebanese president in recent decades. He has opposed Hezbollah and Iranian interference, supported dialogue with Israel, and begun translating those positions into action.
The Lebanese Armed Forces remain limited and far from fully effective, but under his leadership they are doing more than before to restore the state’s monopoly on armed force. This progress has been made possible primarily by Hezbollah’s weakness, but also by Aoun’s policy and direction.
Aoun’s caution should not be mistaken for reluctance. The devastation of the war has created an opportunity to loosen Hezbollah’s grip on Lebanon, and Aoun appears determined to guide the country through that transition.
Political necessity and Aoun’s own convictions now point in the same direction: ending Hezbollah’s domination. He understands the price Lebanon has paid for allowing an Iranian militia to operate on its soil. He also recognizes that significant sections of the public – particularly within the Christian community – are weary of Hezbollah and years of war.
That sentiment gives him room to pursue an alternative course. His challenge is to steer Lebanon forward while contending with an armed organization that still enjoys significant support among Lebanese Shi’ites.
None of this makes Aoun master of Lebanon. Hezbollah remains armed, politically entrenched, and capable of obstructing – or violently derailing – the process. Yet so far, Aoun has moved in the right direction.
Israel and and the US should act on this opportunity. Across the border is a Lebanese leader willing to take political risks in defense of his country’s interests – and to make that case publicly to his own people, in Arabic, rather than only before an American audience in Washington. Aoun’s course also aligns with Israel’s strategic interests: advancing peace with Lebanon and dismantling Hezbollah’s military power.
One of the understandable lessons Israelis drew from October 7 was to take their enemies’ declared intentions seriously. But strategic vigilance also requires recognizing when a different possibility begins to emerge.
The road to peace with Lebanon – and to Hezbollah’s disarmament – remains long, difficult, and uncertain. Yet for the first time in years, Israel may have a potential partner in Beirut.
Aoun is no Sadat, and Lebanon is not Egypt in the late 1970s. But history rarely repeats itself in identical form. With the right strategy, Aoun could become both a genuine partner for peace and an important force in restoring Lebanese sovereignty.
Israel and the United States should therefore combine incentives with pressure. Israel should undertake phased, verifiable withdrawals wherever the Lebanese Armed Forces establish effective control.
Washington should sustain military and economic assistance conditioned on measurable progress toward the state’s monopoly on arms.
Both countries should maintain pressure on Hezbollah while avoiding steps that publicly humiliate Aoun or allow his opponents to portray him as Israel’s instrument. In the Middle East, opportunities rarely remain open for long. Israel and the United States should seize this one before Hezbollah closes it.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI). In the Israeli Defense Intelligence, he served as head of the Hezbollah and Lebanon Branch (2022–2024) and later as senior adviser to the director of IDI (2024–2026).