BEIRUT: US envoy Tom Barrack said he was “very satisfied” with how Lebanon responded to a US proposal aimed at disarming Hezbollah.
The comments from the US ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy for Syria and Lebanon came after his meeting with President Joseph Aoun on Monday.
Barrack’s meetings with Lebanese officials took place while Israeli reconnaissance planes were hovering over Beirut and the Presidential Palace in Baabda.
A security source told Arab News that the US delegation “expressed its surprise at the overflight, using the term ‘weird’ to describe it, especially since the roar of the aircraft was audible inside the meeting hall.”
Barrack received the Lebanese leadership’s response to the US proposals aimed at establishing a road map for implementing the ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel, and focusing on confining weapons solely to the Lebanese state.
On the eve of Barrack’s visit, the Israeli army launched a series of airstrikes on several areas in the south and the Bekaa Valley. The attacks left 10 people injured, including a child, the Ministry of Health said.
Besides Aoun, Barrack held talks with Lebanon’s Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri — who is in charge of communicating with Hezbollah regarding the negotiations with the American side — and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, with each meeting lasting over an hour.
In a statement issued by its media office, the presidency emphasized that Aoun provided Lebanese ideas for a comprehensive solution.
Berri’s media office said that the meeting was “very good and constructive and clearly took into account Lebanon’s interests and sovereignty, the concerns of the Lebanese people and Hezbollah’s demands.”
A political source told Arab News that Hezbollah “did not provide the response-drafting committee with answers but rather a set of questions reflecting its concerns.”
In a press conference at the presidential palace, Barrack described his meeting with Aoun as “very interesting and satisfying.”
US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were “deeply grateful for the promptness and the well-balanced, considerate tone of the response to our proposals,” he said.
“It is a highly critical period for Lebanon and the region. An opportunity is on the horizon as the region undergoes significant changes and everything is moving at a remarkable pace. The countries around us are undergoing constant transformation,” he said.
Barrack said Trump had expressed his commitment to and deep respect for Lebanon, as well as his support and desire to help it achieve peace and prosperity.
“I don’t believe there has been any statement like that since the time of Dwight Eisenhower,” he said.
On the Lebanese response, Barrack said: “It is thoughtful and considered. We are creating a go-forward plan and to make that we need dialogue. What the government gave us was something spectacular in a very short period. I’m unbelievably satisfied with the response.
“Now what it takes is delving deeper and taking the time to reflect on the details, which we are going to do. I’m very hopeful.
“Of course the complexity of all this is massive but at the end of it, it is simple: Is everybody tired of what has gone on for the past years? And I think the answer is: absolutely yes. Now that we have a new architecture, we must seize the opportunity. Now everybody is going to have to give up something.
“But when you give up something of a hope and expectation of an illusion, of the adversariness that we have had internally, you can get support from the world to do that.”
Regarding how to deal with Hezbollah’s refusal to hand over its weapons to the state, Barrack said: “The good news for the US is that we do not intend to deal with it. We intend for you to deal with it.
“If you want change, you change it, and we will be there to support you. But if you do not want change, it is no problem. This is a call to action.”
Lebanon risked being left behind as change swept through other countries in the region, he said.
Regarding guarantees for Lebanon, Barrack said that “what happened previously was that the specificity in the cessation of hostility agreement just was not sufficient. So neither side trusted the other.
“The mistrust between Israel, Hezbollah and the Lebanese army, all the pieces just never came together, because everybody was in such a hurry to get a transaction done. What your government is doing now is filling in those details.”
The envoy referred to the Taif Agreement, which he considered “almost identical to what is happening today. So let us take lessons from the past.”
“My belief is that Israel wants peace with Lebanon, how to get there is a challenge. Hezbollah is a political party but it also has a militant aspect to it.
“It needs to see that there is a future for it and that that road is not harnessed just solely against it and that there is an intersection of peace and prosperity for it also.”
Barrack said Israel “does not seek war with Lebanon. It is not an occupying force nor does it harbor ambitions to control the country.
“On the contrary, it respects the shared Levantine culture that unites the region. The conflict has been a nightmare for both sides and a growing fatigue is evident.
“Today, a genuine opportunity exists, made possible by the leadership of the US president, particularly through his decisive stance on Israel and Iran. Israel finds itself at a moment of introspection, seeking to show the world that it values patience and is committed to regional calm. I believe their intentions are sincere.
“Syria, once overwhelmed by chaos, is now entering a new phase, marked by hope that the international community will support its reconstruction efforts, which are beginning from the ground up,” Barrack said.
Addressing the prospect of a Syria-Israel agreement, he said: “Dialogue between the two sides has already begun, and we are no longer constrained by the events of 1967, 1974, 1982, 1993, or even by UN Resolution 1707.
“While these events hold historical significance, they are no longer the focal point. What matters now is that all parties are actively seeking to reach an understanding, an effort to de-escalate tensions and bring an end to hostilities through a meaningful agreement.”
According to sources, the Lebanese response “reaffirmed its commitment to Resolution 1701, including the extension of state authority south of the Litani River and the dismantling of unauthorized installations.”
However, it linked “the exclusivity of arms control to Israel’s full implementation of its obligations under the same resolution,” they said.
The Lebanese response stopped short of detailing how Hezbollah would withdraw its weapons north of the Litani and offered neither an implementation mechanism nor a defined timeline for action.
The Lebanese response urged “Arab sponsorship of Lebanese-Syrian relations, emphasizing the importance of facilitating the return of Syrian refugees and strengthening control over the shared border.
“It also underscored the need to address the issue of Palestinian faction arms, under the Taif Agreement and the provisions of Resolution 1701,” the sources said.
