The United States and involved parties on June 22 announced the creation of a 'deconfliction cell' in Lebanon, designed to shore up the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. The mechanism aims to establish a communication channel between the sides, preventing individual incidents from escalating into more severe violence.
This is a particular priority for Washington because Lebanon is seen as a flashpoint that could unravel the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding and plunge the region back into all-out war. Iran has repeatedly stated it will not allow Israel to continue striking Lebanon without consequences. Israel, in turn, rejects any effort to curb its ability to conduct airstrikes in Lebanon or withdraw from territory it occupies.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance endorsed the de-escalation mechanism. He argued that although Israel continues to attack Lebanon, killing dozens despite the ceasefire agreement, the scale of strikes has diminished compared to earlier periods. The U.S. considers the ceasefire a success if the current level of violence is maintained or reduced. 'Sometimes a ceasefire just means you're shooting a little bit less,' Vance said on June 22.
According to statistics, Israel has killed at least 4,192 people in Lebanon since the start of the U.S.-Israel campaign against Iran four months ago. The conflict began in October 2023 after Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel in response to Israel's military operation in Gaza.
Direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel took place this week in Washington, but Hezbollah did not participate. In a statement on June 21, the group criticized the Lebanese government for simply 'nodding and rubber-stamping' U.S. demands, harming Lebanon's sovereignty.
Still, analysts view the announcement of the de-escalation mechanism as a signal that the ceasefire has not fully collapsed. Marc Weller, Director of the Center for Global Governance and Security at Chatham House, described it as 'a very positive step to avoid escalation.' The mechanism is expected to help deter provocative actions and limit the parties' responses.
However, a major question remains: does de-escalation equate to disarming Hezbollah? The U.S. and the Lebanese government, backed by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, continue to push for bringing Hezbollah's weapons under state control. Iran, Hezbollah's close ally, opposes this.
Karim Safieddine, a research fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, argued that 'there will never be a time when Hezbollah disarms.' Although its capabilities are no longer what they once were, the organization retains ways to acquire weapons at the local level because it is a highly organized mass movement.
Earlier, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio proposed training Lebanese special forces to disarm Hezbollah. However, analysts warn that such a scenario could trigger internal conflict. Nicholas Blanford, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, deemed the proposal 'not feasible,' given that the Lebanese government is unlikely to accept training its military to fight Hezbollah.
