News

The agreement between Washington and Tehran reversed the Israeli story. Israel retains considerable military power in Lebanon, but it loses part of the diplomatic control of the exit from war. Iran returns as a global interlocutor, Lebanon gets an argument about its territorial integrity and Donald Trump can impose its logic of de-escalation. For Netanyahu, maintaining the army in southern Lebanon becomes a political, military and strategic trap.

Nawaf Salam's visit to Paris puts the Lebanese army back at the centre of the state's return to the South. The Prime Minister wants to turn sovereignty into a concrete capacity: to accompany the Israeli withdrawal, to coordinate with UNIFIL, to secure the villages and to reassure the displaced. France can provide a diplomatic and military relay, but the real test will be played on the ground, in the ability of the army to occupy the space left by the war.

Naim Kassem fixed the Hezbollah line in the sequence opened by the regional agreement between Washington and Tehran. The party's secretary-general refuses any disarmament-related proposals as long as the Israeli army remains present in southern Lebanon. He accepted the idea of a national dialogue, but only after the Israeli withdrawal, the cessation of attacks, the return of the displaced and the reconstruction. This position strengthens the party in the short term, but also risks prolonging the Lebanese political deadlock.

Returning to South Lebanon does not yet mean returning to normal life. After the announcement of the de-escalation, displaced families return to see the damage in their villages, recover property and assess the possibility of staying. But the houses destroyed, the lack of water and electricity, the schools affected, the dangerous roads and the persistent strikes show that the crisis continues. Reconstruction must be civil, social and security.

The publication by the Israeli army of a map designating a "security zone" in southern Lebanon occurs at the most sensitive moment in the diplomatic sequence opened by the Islamabad agreement. By displaying a military presence of up to ten kilometres within Lebanese territory, Israel seeks to impose a security fact, while the Washington-Theran text mentions the cessation of operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, and the guarantee of Lebanese sovereignty.

The Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon has become the central criterion of the regional agreement between Washington and Tehran. A ceasefire will not suffice if Israel retains positions, a security zone or freedom of military action. For Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam, Lebanese sovereignty begins with the liberation of the territory and the deployment of the army. For Hezbollah, withdrawal must precede any debate on weapons.

Syria refuses to intervene in Lebanon against Hezbollah, despite Trump's calls, and leaves Israel trapped in the Lebanese front.

The Lebanese press on June 18 puts Lebanon in front of the American-Iranian agreement test. Between sovereignty displayed, pressure on Israel, the role of Hezbollah and the demands of the Group of Seven, Beirut seeks to impose the State as the only interlocutor in a regional negotiation that still exceeds it.

Former Chief of Staff of the IDF, Gadi Eisenkot appears increasingly as a credible alternative to Benjamin Netanyahu. His security profile, his military career, his personal mourning in the Gaza war and his new Yashar party give him a unique place in a conflict-hardened Israeli society. The Islamabad accords, perceived by one side of Israel as a diplomatic defeat against Iran, reinforce this political dynamic.

After the Israeli strikes on Beirut, JD Vance sent an unusually firm message to Israel. The US Vice President recalls that the interests of Washington and Jerusalem are not always the same, as the Trump administration seeks to preserve the memorandum with Tehran. This position places Lebanon at the centre of an arm between American diplomacy, Israeli security demands and Iran's conditions.

The night signing of the Islamabad memorandum in Versailles gives Lebanon an unexpected place in the settlement between Washington and Tehran. The first clause mentions the end of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and the guarantee of Lebanese sovereignty. This formulation opens a major diplomatic window, but its effect will depend on the final agreement, a Security Council resolution and verifiable mechanisms on the ground.

الللبنانين البانين الللبنانين البن البين البنين بنهوب دراسههمي الللن اللبنانين البنان فين بنين باسههم في الب في فرنسالن ولن في مللن السفارلبنان في في بارير بنور وهير الن فير اللشون الالماعاعين الين الن الين النان فيان في بارور ونير الننير الون ابييي ال ن وفي 简لم体ه Whilst the [...]

The Islamabad memorandum between the United States and Iran places Lebanon in the first clause of the draft agreement. The text provides for the permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and mentions the guarantee of Lebanese territorial integrity and sovereignty. But this formula must be translated into specific mechanisms: Israeli withdrawal, return of displaced persons, role of the Lebanese army and international surveillance.

The draft 14-point agreement between Iran and the United States provides for a general ceasefire, a 60-day negotiating period, the reopening of the Strait of Ormuz, the gradual lifting of sanctions and an economic programme of $300 billion. But the Lebanese side remains one of the most sensitive points: Lebanon is well mentioned in the ceasefire, without clear public guarantees on the Israeli withdrawal from the South or on the return of the displaced.