Israel and Lebanon signed a U.S.-brokered framework agreement in Washington on Friday, giving the United States a central role in a new effort to wind down months of fighting between Israel and the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah and to move toward a broader security arrangement along the Israel-Lebanon border.

The signing at the State Department was announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and attended by Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, and Lebanon’s ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh Moawad. U.S. officials described the framework as a first step rather than a final peace agreement, and the public details released so far indicate that the arrangement is designed to create a process for phased security implementation, Lebanese state control and eventual Israeli redeployment.

Rubio said the agreement establishes a process to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty, disarm Hezbollah and dismantle the group’s infrastructure. According to the State Department and Reuters reporting, Washington will facilitate implementation through a newly created trilateral Military Coordination Group for Lebanon. Rubio also said the United States would commit immediate humanitarian assistance for Lebanon and support the Lebanese Armed Forces through existing U.S. authorities and appropriations.

The agreement’s U.S. relevance is direct. It was negotiated in Washington, signed under U.S. auspices and built around a U.S.-facilitated mechanism that will test whether American diplomacy can convert a tenuous ceasefire into a durable security framework. It also places Washington between Israeli demands for protection from Hezbollah attacks and Lebanese demands for restored territorial integrity after Israeli forces expanded their presence in southern Lebanon during the latest round of fighting.

Reuters reported that the framework followed several days of talks aimed at securing an end to fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. The parties released few specifics at the signing, but Israeli and Lebanese officials described the deal as an initial step. Netanyahu said the framework allows Israeli forces to remain in southern Lebanon if Hezbollah does not disarm, while Lebanese officials said the goal is a full restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and the return of citizens to their land.

The agreement does not include Hezbollah, which remains the most immediate obstacle to implementation. The Associated Press reported that Hezbollah was not part of the talks and that a Hezbollah official warned that Lebanese authorities would not be able to enforce the Washington agreement without risking civil conflict. Hassan Fadlallah, a member of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, said the group rejects direct Lebanese negotiations with Israel and would not give up its weapons.

That rejection highlights the central enforcement problem facing the framework. Lebanon’s government can sign a security arrangement, but Hezbollah retains armed power and political influence inside the country. Israeli officials have said their priority is disarmament of Hezbollah and removal of its infrastructure near the border. Lebanese officials have said their priority is ending Israeli control of Lebanese territory and extending the authority of the state, through its armed forces, across all Lebanese territory.

The State Department has presented the framework as a way to address both concerns through sequencing and verification. For Israel, the framework is intended to create a path for removing threats on its northern border. For Lebanon, it is described as a pathway out of prolonged crisis and toward regained territorial control. But neither side has indicated that the signing by itself resolves the core dispute over whether Israeli forces leave first, Hezbollah disarms first, or both steps proceed under phased implementation.

Israeli officials have referred to “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon where the Lebanese army could begin taking control of territory as Israeli troops withdraw from selected areas. Netanyahu said Israel would maintain a security zone as long as Hezbollah remains armed and continues to pose a threat. Leiter said after the signing that further movement would depend on the Lebanese army’s performance in dismantling and disarming Hezbollah and on the creation of an internationally recognized, secure and agreed border.

Lebanese leaders have emphasized the sovereignty side of the agreement. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said the arrangement aims to achieve Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory, restore state sovereignty and facilitate the return of citizens. President Joseph Aoun had previously said the proposal under discussion involved zones where the Lebanese army would take exclusive control as Israeli forces withdrew, pending Israeli approval.

The humanitarian stakes are substantial. AP and Reuters have reported that more than 4,000 people in Lebanon have been killed in Israeli strikes since March, while at least several dozen Israeli soldiers and civilians have been killed in the fighting. The conflict escalated after Hezbollah fired on Israel following the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran earlier this year, drawing Israeli air and ground operations into Lebanon and displacing large numbers of civilians.

Even as the framework was signed, conditions on the ground remained unstable. Reuters reported that Israeli forces dropped leaflets over the southern Lebanese town of Mansouri on Friday ordering residents to leave, with Israeli officials describing the notice as a reminder that the area was within a security zone where Israeli soldiers operate. The incident underscored the gap between diplomatic ceremony in Washington and ongoing military realities in southern Lebanon.

The framework also intersects with broader U.S. diplomacy involving Iran. AP reported that the Israel-Lebanon talks are separate from a recent interim U.S.-Iran deal intended to end fighting in Iran and open a period for negotiations on issues including Tehran’s nuclear program. Lebanon’s government has been wary of having Iran negotiate over Lebanese territory or Hezbollah’s role on its behalf, a concern that helped push direct Israel-Lebanon talks under U.S. sponsorship.

For the Trump administration, the agreement offers a visible diplomatic achievement but also creates a practical test. The United States is now tied to a mechanism whose success depends on Lebanese military capacity, Israeli restraint, Hezbollah’s response and sustained international assistance. The promised U.S. support for Lebanon’s armed forces reflects Washington’s longstanding goal of strengthening state institutions as a counterweight to Hezbollah, but the framework will require more than funding if it is to change control on the ground.

The next stage is likely to focus on the Military Coordination Group, the scope of any initial pilot zones, the timing and verification of Lebanese army deployments, and whether Hezbollah moves from political rejection to active obstruction. U.S. officials have not publicly released the full text of the agreement, leaving important implementation details unresolved. Until those details are tested in southern Lebanon, the Washington signing remains a diplomatic opening rather than a settled peace.