As Washington signals a rare diplomatic opening with Israel and pressure mounts from Iran and regional powers, Lebanon’s internal balance of authority, negotiation strategy, and post-war future faces a critical test.
Hezbollah is engaged in a fierce battle to thwart direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, following an important American shift toward initiating direct talks, described by the U.S. Secretary of State as “historic” and unprecedented for decades. This move was made by U.S. President Donald Trump, who considered it a new addition to his record of ending wars, declaring that he had ended a new war between Lebanon and Israel by stating that Israel will not bomb Lebanon anymore, emphasizing that “America will prevent Israel from bombing Lebanon.”
The competition is directly with Iran, as Pakistani Foreign Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar confirmed that Lebanon is “one of the main points of contention” between the two sides. Iran insists that any agreement with the United States must include a ceasefire in Lebanon, given its possession of this card and thus its negotiating power. Meanwhile, official and unofficial Lebanon has made its position clear through President Joseph Aoun, stating that it refuses to be negotiated on its behalf anymore.
The rapid developments, characterized by the American pivot toward ending the war in Lebanon, have unsettled the country’s political reality. This unexpected move has generated caution and fear regarding the American push, which introduced a rapid and powerful shift that Lebanon is not currently able to absorb. This was reflected in the U.S. president’s announcement of an anticipated phone call between President Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Subsequent diplomatic developments, however, have in reality strengthened the credibility of the state by highlighting that its direct communication with Israel, initiated in Washington, was the most effective means of securing a ceasefire.
This came after Washington pressured Israel to engage positively in launching negotiations, while Iran sought to claim this achievement from Lebanon as a condition of its negotiations with the United States, ensuring Hezbollah’s survival, status, and capabilities. Recently, the party has attempted, both before and after the ceasefire announcement, to present a victory capable of standing against field developments as well as strong internal shifts expressed by President Aoun in his latest speech, alongside regional changes that threaten its existence as a “resistance,” without any real success.
A few days ago, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei defended Iran’s negotiation approach, stating that “Iran does not enter into negotiations to implement U.S. dictates but negotiates to achieve its national interests.” President Aoun said, “These negotiations are not a sign of weakness, retreat, or concession. Negotiations do not and will not ever mean squandering any right, relinquishing any principle, or compromising the sovereignty of this nation.”
This approach cannot be measured with a double standard. The same applies to what the party demands and what Lebanon, as a state, demands. The president outlined the next phase’s objectives as follows: “Stopping Israeli aggression on our land and people, Israel’s withdrawal, exerting the state’s authority exclusively over its entire land, the return of prisoners, and people returning securely, freely, and with dignity to their homes and villages.”
Meanwhile, Naim Qassem stated, “The next step is to implement the five points: permanent cessation of aggression across all of Lebanon by land, sea, and air, withdrawal of the Israeli army from the occupied territories to the borders, release of prisoners, people returning to their villages and towns up to the borders, and reconstruction with Arab and international support and national responsibility.” Qassem’s mention of reconstruction with international and Arab support suggests an understanding of its impossibility if Hezbollah retains its weapons, after its involvement in the second support war presents a challenge that is difficult to overcome financially and in terms of reconstruction.
Hezbollah must thus prepare for the next stage represented by an agreement or understanding between the U.S. and Iran that is likely not to leave it unchanged. The American president has provided initial but suggestive indicators by tweeting that Iran has agreed to stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.
Meanwhile, in another tweet, he noted that “Washington is dealing with the Hezbollah situation appropriately,” leaving room for interpretations ranging from pressure on Iran to the nature of the support the United States could offer, as per the U.S. State Department statement indicating the Lebanese government agreed to take “serious steps” to prevent Hezbollah or any other non-state actors from launching attacks against Israel from Lebanese territory. The United States stated that Lebanon would receive unspecified international support in this mission.
Negotiating a peace agreement with Israel is not easy, but two fundamental and urgent factors cannot be ignored. The first is the level of attention the U.S. president has given to Lebanon, even if it aligns with priorities related to his negotiation track with Iran. For some, this attention is akin to the historical shift marked by facilitating a meeting, supported by Saudi Arabia, between the U.S. president and his Syrian counterpart Ahmad Al-Sharaa in Riyadh last May. Subsequent steps taken by the U.S. administration contributed to creating an opportunity for Syrian stability and recovery, including preventing Israeli attacks on Syrian territories.
