Israel News: IDF Doubts Lebanese Army's Ability to Hold Line After Withdrawal

In the latest Israel news, President Trump's recent statement that Israeli troops are likely to leave southern Lebanon has reignited debate over the region's security framework. Israeli Defense Minister Katz pushed back, asserting that Israel does not need approval to maintain its presence. Yet amid the political back-and-forth, a more fundamental question looms: who will secure the border if Israel pulls back?

A report from The Jerusalem Post reveals deep skepticism among IDF commanders about the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) ability to enforce the terms of the framework agreement signed by Jerusalem and Beirut. The officers find it hard to believe that the LAF will effectively dismantle Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon, citing a high percentage of Shiite soldiers within the LAF who may hold sympathies toward Hezbollah.

The Core of the Doubt

The framework agreement, negotiated between Israel and Lebanon, assigns the LAF the responsibility of preventing Hezbollah from rebuilding its military presence south of the Litani River. But according to IDF commanders, the LAF's composition undermines this mission. The high proportion of Shiite troops—many from villages with deep ties to Hezbollah—raises questions about loyalty and willingness to act against the group.

One officer reportedly noted that expecting the LAF to confront Hezbollah is unrealistic given the social and familial links. The assessment is not new; similar concerns have been voiced for years, but they carry renewed weight as Israel considers a withdrawal that would leave the LAF as the primary buffer.

This skepticism is critical because the entire withdrawal timeline hinges on credible Lebanese enforcement. Without it, Hezbollah could quickly reassert itself, turning southern Lebanon into a launchpad for attacks on Israeli communities. The IDF's operational calculus has consistently hinged on preventing such a scenario.

Political Statements vs. Ground Reality

Trump's comment—that he believes Israel will withdraw—was made during a press conference, but the specifics remain unclear. Katz's sharp response—'we don't need approval to stay in Lebanon'—underscores the tension between Washington's desire for a scaled-back U.S. footprint and Israel's security demands. The exchange highlights a gulf between political signals and military assessments.

Israeli defense officials have long argued that a robust IDF presence is necessary to prevent Hezbollah from exploiting any vacuum. The LAF, despite receiving U.S. and international funding, lacks both the will and the capacity to confront Hezbollah directly. The wider regional crisis involving Iran further complicates matters: Hezbollah remains Tehran's primary proxy, and any power vacuum in Lebanon could shift the balance of power across the region.

What the Framework Demands

Under the agreement, the LAF is tasked with:

• Deploying sufficient forces to ensure Hezbollah does not operate in the border area.
• Seizing and destroying weapons caches and rocket launchers.
• Preventing unauthorized military activity between the Litani River and the Blue Line.

But IDF intelligence estimates suggest that the LAF has neither the political will nor the logistical capability to carry out these tasks. Many LAF units are logistically dependent on Hezbollah-controlled areas for supplies, and some commanders are wary of triggering internal conflict. The result is a pattern of accommodation: the LAF does not actively hinder Hezbollah, and Hezbollah avoids overtly challenging LAF authority.

The April 13, 2026, report published by The Jerusalem Post, featuring an illustrative image of IDF soldiers operating in southern Lebanon (photo credit: IDF Spokesperson's Unit), captures the current impasse. Israeli troops remain on the ground, conducting patrols and targeted operations against Hezbollah infrastructure. But the political clock is ticking.

Implications for Withdrawal

If Trump's prediction materializes and Israel pulls back, the LAF would be the only force standing between Hezbollah and Israeli border communities. The IDF's assessment suggests that scenario is fraught with risk. Without a credible Lebanese commitment to disarm Hezbollah, any Israeli withdrawal could be viewed as a victory by the militant group, bolstering its regional standing.

Moreover, the Shiite composition of the LAF is not an isolated issue. The Lebanese state itself is deeply fractured along sectarian lines, and the LAF is one of the few institutions that enjoy cross-communal trust—but that trust is fragile. Forcing the LAF into a direct confrontation with Hezbollah could shatter that trust and trigger internal unrest.

There is also the question of international backing. The U.S. and France have supported LAF training and equipment, but whether that translates into operational effectiveness remains unproven. The U.S. security assistance is often contingent on LAF progress, but progress has been slow.

Hezbollah's Calculus

Hezbollah has its own strategic reasons for avoiding a direct clash with the LAF. The group's leadership understands that alienating the Lebanese army could erode its domestic support. But Hezbollah's priority is maintaining its military capacity as a deterrent against Israel. A withdrawal could allow Hezbollah to claim it forced Israel out, using that narrative to justify its continued arms.

IDF commanders are well aware of this dynamic. Their skepticism about the LAF is not a critique of individual soldiers, but a realistic assessment of institutional constraints. As one officer put it, expecting the LAF to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure is like expecting a fire department to set fire to its own station.

The Way Forward

Neither the Trump administration nor the Israeli government has publicly outlined a detailed plan for what happens after withdrawal. Katz's insistence on Israel's right to stay suggests that the IDF may maintain covert capabilities inside Lebanon. But large-scale occupation is unpopular both domestically and internationally.

A possible compromise could involve a multinational force to support the LAF, but past experiences—such as UNIFIL—have shown limited success. Another option is to establish a demilitarized zone monitored by advanced surveillance and quick-reaction air assets. But none of these solutions address the core problem: the LAF's inability to confront Hezbollah.

The IDF commanders' doubts, rooted in the structural reality of the LAF's Shiite composition, are unlikely to fade without a profound political shift in Lebanon. Until then, any discussion of Israeli withdrawal remains contingent on a military assessment that says the Lebanese army is not ready.

As the political debate continues, the ground truth is clear: without a force capable and willing to police the border, Israel's security depends on its own presence. Trump's optimism and Katz's defiance may dominate headlines, but the real story is the quiet skepticism of the men and women who patrol the frontline.