The term 'freeze weapons' has recently forcefully and seriously entered the daily political discourse.

Thus, the question arises: how does Hezbollah, as the directly concerned party, deal with such a proposal? Is it a genuine proposition or just an idea that might dissipate amidst current developments?

The fact is, the Egyptian side took the lead in elevating this offer's significance when the Egyptian intelligence director Hassan Rashad presented the proposal of 'strategic dormancy,' requiring the party to keep its arms north of the Litani River, while remaining under surveillance to prevent their use.

However, this proposal gained more seriousness when the American envoy, Tom Barak, made a seemingly odd statement, saying, 'It is not necessary to disarm, but rather to prevent the use of arms".

Observers considered the U.S. stance an evolution based on the idea of 'weapon functional disruption,' known as the 'containment policy,' as a precursor to focusing on negotiation paths.

If conditions and circumstances align, this could render the arms a burden on their carrier and protector.

Yet, sources connected to the U.S. administration were quick to consider Barak's stance a personal opinion, not reflecting the American administration's orientation in this domain.

Hezbollah approaches the issue from its viewpoint, suggesting, through sources close to it, that the American administration's circles put forth this idea, but not necessarily altruistically.

The proposal serves as a 'probe' to gauge the party's real reaction to it since it remains, for now, merely ideas floated in the Lebanese scene, allowing the American administration later to disown them once their effects expire.

The same sources do not hide the possibility that the proposal might be a 'carrot' for the party to test its weakness, with its prompt acceptance holding certain implications, and its neglect and disregard having other implications for the American administration.

From this standpoint, the party, according to the same sources, will remain firm in ignoring the proposal, awaiting confirmation on the following points:

• U.S. administration’s seriousness when launching the proposal.
• Potential next steps if the party accepts.
• Israel’s true position on the proposal.
• The stance of Lebanese parties eager to dismantle Hezbollah's military and security apparatus, especially since such a proposal could lead them to express dissatisfaction in different forms.

However, naturally, the party views the American offer as reflecting a growing conviction of the inability to achieve the goal set with Israel since the ceasefire agreement, which calls for disarming the party wherever it is.

The same sources add that the American mind has been making an exceptional effort lately to find a workaround that leads to the 'containment of weapons' to keep them ineffective.

In the same context, there was a proposal to give Beirut an additional deadline to complete the disarmament mission within the timeline supposed to end at the end of this year.