|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Israel–Lebanon Agreement: Cautious Hope, Grounded Realism | An original article by Avi Melamed.
The framework agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon under U.S. mediation is far more than a limited security arrangement. It represents the first serious attempt since the 1983 agreement to redefine the rules of the game in Lebanon by restoring the state’s monopoly over the legitimate use of force.
If successfully implemented, the agreement could mark the beginning of the end of the “Resistance Paradigm” that Iran has imposed through Hezbollah for more than four decades. If it fails, however, it could trigger renewed internal tensions and deepen Lebanon’s chronic instability.
Lebanon’s Position: Restoring State Sovereignty
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has presented the agreement as the implementation of principles that Lebanon itself already accepted through the Taif Agreement and UN Security Council Resolution 1701: the Lebanese state is the sole sovereign authority, the Lebanese Armed Forces are the country’s only legitimate military force, and only the government has the authority to decide questions of war and peace.
From this perspective, the agreement is not a concession to Israel but rather a necessary step toward restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty and enabling displaced residents to return safely to southern Lebanon.
In effect, the Lebanese government seeks to detach the state from the “Resistance” doctrine that has long provided Hezbollah with political and legal justification for maintaining an independent military force.
Hezbollah’s Position: A Strategic Threat
Hezbollah views the agreement as an existential challenge.
Secretary-General Naim Qassem described any linkage between an Israeli withdrawal and the disarmament of the “Resistance” as crossing “all red lines.” He accused the Lebanese government of undermining national sovereignty and denounced the agreement as an act of humiliation.
At the same time, Hezbollah has issued implicit warnings of possible internal confrontation should the government attempt to enforce the agreement. Violent demonstrations by Hezbollah supporters in Beirut have already illustrated the intensity of domestic opposition to the initiative.
Israel’s Position: Preventing Hezbollah’s Military Recovery
From Israel’s perspective, the agreement is designed to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its military capabilities while establishing a framework in which responsibility for security in southern Lebanon rests exclusively with the Lebanese state.
The agreement therefore fits within Israel’s broader strategic objective of reducing Iran’s regional influence.
Its success, however, will depend largely on the determination of the Lebanese government and the willingness of the international community to ensure effective implementation.
Regional Significance: Lebanon at the Center of the Struggle Over Iran’s Regional Influence
One of the most important themes emerging from Arab commentary is that this is not merely a Lebanese issue.
Palestinian analyst Saddam Sahwil argues that, from Tehran’s perspective, Lebanon is Iran’s single most valuable strategic asset within its regional network of influence. Consequently, any effort to weaken Hezbollah is viewed not as a domestic Lebanese development but as a direct challenge to Iran’s regional standing, deterrence capability, and strategic freedom of action throughout the Middle East.
This also explains why Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and several other Arab states have openly backed the Lebanese government and its efforts to restore national sovereignty, viewing the agreement as an opportunity to reduce Iranian influence in Lebanon.
The Principal Challenges
The agreement faces three major challenges:
Implementation. Key provisions concerning Hezbollah’s disarmament leave room for interpretation, particularly regarding what constitutes “verified disarmament.” This ambiguity could allow Hezbollah to delay or obstruct implementation.
Political resolve. The Lebanese government will need to demonstrate that it is prepared to withstand Hezbollah’s intimidation and domestic political pressure.
International support. The agreement’s success will depend heavily on sustained diplomatic pressure from the United States and key Arab states to ensure that its provisions are fully implemented.
Will Hezbollah Drag Lebanon into Civil War?
Despite Hezbollah’s threats, the likelihood of a full-scale Lebanese civil war currently appears relatively low.
Several factors support this assessment:
- Hezbollah has emerged from the war significantly weakened militarily, politically, and publicly.
- The fall of the Assad regime has deprived Hezbollah of the strategic depth it previously enjoyed in Syria.
- Iran has little interest in undermining its broader understandings with the United States by provoking an internal conflict in Lebanon.
This does not mean the danger has disappeared.
The more likely scenario is that Hezbollah will pursue a strategy of intimidation, coercion, and carefully calibrated crises designed to discourage the Lebanese government from fully implementing the agreement while avoiding actions that could trigger a nationwide civil war. Nevertheless, localized confrontations always carry the risk of unintended escalation.
Bottom Line
Iran established its dominance over Lebanon through Hezbollah under the banners of “Resistance” and the “Liberation of Palestine.” Today, however, a growing number of Lebanese have grown weary of the instability and violence imposed on their country by Iran and its proxy.
Above all, the Israel–Lebanon agreement is a test of Lebanon’s sovereignty. Legally and politically, it seeks to delegitimize Hezbollah’s status as an independent military force and restore the state’s exclusive authority over decisions of war and peace.
Ultimately, however, the agreement’s success will not be determined by its wording but by the political resolve of the Lebanese government, the sustained support of key Arab states—particularly Saudi Arabia—and the continued commitment of the United States to restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty.
If implemented successfully, the agreement could mark the beginning of a new regional order in which sovereign states—not Iranian-backed militias—once again become the primary actors in Lebanon. If it fails, it risks becoming yet another agreement that proved unable to alter realities on the ground.
At this stage, the agreement should be viewed with cautious hope, tempered by a clear-eyed appreciation of the many obstacles that remain ahead.
This article is also available as a Podcast: the AiTME Podcast. This Podcast was written and created by Avi Melamed, Middle East Intelligence Analyst and Founder of Inside The Middle East [ITME], an institute dedicated to apolitical, non-partisan education about the Middle East.
“This podcast is made possible by supporters like you. ITME is an independent, nonprofit institute committed to apolitical, intelligence-based Middle East education.
To support our work, visit >> https://www.paypal.com/donate/
The Israel–Lebanon Agreement: Cautious Hope, Grounded Realism | An original article by Avi Melamed.
If you want to have a better understanding of the news and what really drives the unfolding events… Read the latest book of Avi Melamed, INSIDE THE MIDDLE EAST | ENTERING A NEW ERA, available now >>>
Follow me on Twitter @AviMelamed; Facebook @InsideTheMiddleEast; for more Videos on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/AviMelamed
I can always be reached at Av*@********ed.com
