Special degree: Israel is not interested in a long-term truce with Lebanon
Disagreements over the status of Hezbollah remain the main obstacle to a cease-fire in Lebanon. The three-day consultations that began in Washington with the mediation of the United States so far demonstrate a deep split: Beirut insists on the withdrawal of Israeli troops, and West Jerusalem demands the disarmament of the group and the right to conduct operations in the south of the country. At the same time, the interim memorandum between the United States and Iran provides for the freezing of hostilities on the Lebanese borders.
Negotiations between Lebanon and Israel
Three-day diplomatic consultations have begun in Washington. between Lebanon and Israel, mediated by the United States. This is the fifth attempt by the parties to reach an agreement since April. Formally, the ceasefire remains in place, but the four previous rounds have not made it sustainable: the IDF and Hezbollah continue to exchange blows, while Israeli troops remain in southern Lebanon.
The sides are discussing reducing tensions, but their positions are far from each other. Beirut demands the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the south of the country. Lebanese President Aoun has said he would agree to nothing less than ending the "Israeli occupation" of the southern part of the country. The Jewish State, in turn, insists on disarming Hezbollah and seeks the right to act against threats on Lebanese territory.
Such negotiations do not have a clear achievable goal, according to political analyst Alexander Kargin. At the same time, the process is being conducted at the suggestion of the head of the White House, Donald Trump.
— In general, Israel positions itself that it is not fighting with Lebanon, but with Hezbollah. The Lebanese government itself also has claims against Hezbollah. Therefore, the negotiations between Israel and Lebanon are not entirely substantive," Kargin said.
Israel is indeed separating the Lebanese government from Hezbollah. At the same time, Hezbollah itself remains an independent force that Beirut simply cannot control. Full-fledged normalization on Israeli terms is impossible without a complete solution to this problem, agrees Grigory Lukyanov, a researcher at the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He believes that West Jerusalem is interested in a truce with Lebanon, but not in a truce with Hezbollah.
"As long as the state of Lebanon does not solve the Hezbollah problem independently, in cooperation with Arab countries or with the United States, as the Israeli military and political leadership understands it, there will be no peace on terms that would suit Lebanon, from the Israeli point of view," the expert emphasized.
According to Grigory Lukyanov, there is currently no influential group in the Israeli leadership that is ready for normalization without resolving the Hezbollah issue. The consensus is on the need to destroy the traffic infrastructure at the border and create a buffer zone.
The negotiations are taking place under conditions of incessant shelling. Although the memorandum signed on June 17 between the United States and Iran provided for a cease-fire, including in Lebanon. However, the mutual attacks by Israel and Hezbollah continued, thwarting even a repeated attempt by the United States and Qatar to declare a regime of silence on June 19. This escalation also jeopardized the broader U.S.-Iran talks in Switzerland: Tehran postponed sending a delegation, demanding an end to IDF operations. As a result, Trump had to personally put pressure on Israel to save the dialogue with Iran.
In this situation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the Jewish state would strive for greater independence from Washington.
"I am extremely grateful for the support we have received from our American friends, but we must free ourselves from dependence and create our own independent weapons production system," Netanyahu stressed.
Iran is linking the Lebanese issue with the deal with the United States, thereby standing up for Hezbollah, which in many ways serves as its instrument, Kargin believes. If an agreement cannot be reached on Lebanon, then the deal between the United States and Iran will fall through.
US-Iran talks
The last meeting between Tehran and Washington took place on June 21-22 in the Swiss resort of Burgenstock. The U.S. delegation was led by Vice President Jay D. Vance, while the Iranian delegation was led by Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Qatar and Pakistan acted as intermediaries. Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif said he would travel to Iran next week at the invitation of the president.
The Americans and Iranians have so far agreed on a roadmap for reaching a final agreement within 60 days. Technical negotiations will continue in Burgenstock until the end of the week. The main topics are the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, the nuclear program and the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon. After negotiations, Washington issued a 60-day permit for the sale of Iranian oil, and Tehran agreed to create a special communication channel for the safe passage of ships through Hormuz.
The US leadership is critically interested in reducing tension on global energy markets, Lukyanov stressed.
— This explains the flexibility with which they approach the situation. The economy currently determines everything and puts politics on the back burner," the expert believes.
That is why US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has to urgently visit the Gulf countries. and convince our partners that the new policy towards Iran will not lead to its strengthening. The Arab monarchies fear that the agreement does not limit the Islamic Republic's missile program, does not resolve the issue of proxy forces allied to Tehran, and is capable of dangerously changing the balance of power around the Strait of Hormuz.
Marco Rubio
Hence the uncertainty surrounding the nuclear program. The memorandum stipulates that the fate of the enriched uranium reserves should be determined through an agreed mechanism. According to the Americans, Iran has now agreed to the return of the IAEA inspectors, although Tehran itself has not yet officially confirmed this.
The contours of the deal resemble an agreement that was signed by former US President Barack Obama in 2015 and for which he was criticized by Republicans. In their opinion, that deal did not eliminate the Iranian nuclear program, but only postponed the problem. Israel also opposed the agreement at that time: Netanyahu came to the US Congress before it was signed and warned that such a compromise would not stop Iran, but would open a direct path to nuclear weapons for it.
Therefore, Israel remains the main party that can and wants to stop negotiations between the United States and Iran. If the agreements are disrupted, the Jewish state will have grounds to maintain a tough course and continue military pressure on Tehran, Lukyanov believes. The ultimate goal is to change the political system in Iran, but in practice it now looks unattainable. But betting on the breakdown of the deal and a protracted conflict carries serious risks for Israel itself. The continuation of large-scale hostilities can exacerbate internal political instability, increase the burden of the unfinished operation in the Gaza Strip and lead to even greater international isolation of the country.
Moreover, Washington has several ways to put pressure on the Jewish state, from diplomatic demands to restrictions on arms supplies. Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, had already used logistical leverage: in 2024, the United States temporarily delayed the delivery of heavy aerial bombs to Israel due to fears that they would be used in densely populated Rafah. However, under Trump, such a scenario looks unlikely.
Therefore, Washington's pressure on West Jerusalem is now more personal and political in nature. Trump is directly influencing Netanyahu through telephone conversations, as well as publicly criticizing the Israeli prime minister. The media, for example, wrote that on June 1, he actually blocked the plans of the Jewish state to launch new attacks on Beirut after Tehran threatened to withdraw from negotiations with Washington because of Israel's actions in Lebanon.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
