Israel and Lebanon Open Fourth Round of Talks in Washington as Pentagon Joins

For Serbia, which has spent years balancing between Washington, Brussels and its own ties across the Middle East, every shift in the Israel-Lebanon relationship is not a distant headline, because it shapes how stable the wider region will be at a moment when Belgrade itself leans on the diplomatic channels of the major powers. The envoys of Israel and Lebanon sat down together on June 2 inside the State Department in Washington, opening a fourth round of direct talks set to last two days, through June 3.

What sets this round apart is that the Pentagon joined the process for the first time, signalling that Washington views the question of southern Lebanon not only as a diplomatic file but as a security one. US President Donald Trump said he had received assurances of de-escalation from both Jerusalem and Hezbollah, an indication that both sides, at least publicly, accept the logic of cooling the ground.

What is on the table in Washington?

The agenda for this round covers several interlocking issues that cannot be settled in isolation. Negotiators at the State Department are weighing:

• the withdrawal of Israeli forces from positions in southern Lebanon,
• the takeover of the south by the Lebanese army,
• financial support for the Lebanese armed forces,
• the disarmament of Hezbollah,
• a mechanism to implement and monitor the truce.

Each of these carries its own weight. Beirut insists the sequence is clear: an Israeli pullback must come so the Lebanese army can establish control over the south, while at the same time opening space for displaced people to return. Lebanon enters the talks demanding a full ceasefire, arguing that the return of more than 1.2 million people who left their homes depends on an end to hostilities and firm guarantees that the fighting will not resume.

Bringing in the Pentagon at this stage is not a symbolic gesture. It suggests Washington is also counting on the military and technical dimension of any eventual deal, from training and equipping the Lebanese army to overseeing the implementation of what is agreed. That moves the process away from broad statements and toward concrete questions of who takes control of the sensitive border strip, when, and under whose supervision.

Why does this round matter more than the earlier ones?

The fourth round follows an earlier announcement of a ceasefire, which we have already covered, and carries more weight precisely because it is the first time the sides are negotiating operational detail rather than mere willingness to talk. For Beirut, the stake is the return of the displaced and the restoration of sovereignty over the south, while for Jerusalem the central issue is the disarmament of Hezbollah and a guarantee that the threat from the northern border will not return.

We have received assurances of de-escalation from both Jerusalem and Hezbollah, and we believe there is room to make a lasting step toward calming the situation in southern Lebanon.

That remark by the US president sets the tone with which Washington heads into the close of the round. Even so, by the morning of June 3 neither side had officially announced a final outcome, leaving open how far stated willingness will turn into signed commitments. The coming day will show whether the fourth round delivers a first written framework for withdrawal and monitoring, or whether the talks are once again pushed to the next round.

Do you think bringing in the Pentagon raises the odds of a durable calm in southern Lebanon, or does it merely shift the weight from diplomacy onto the military channel?