A mediator should in principle stand at equal distance from the two protagonists whose conflict it is trying to arbitrate. But as the US is currently the only mediator between Israel and Lebanon, having strenuously worked on excluding anyone else from the mediator role, France in particular, Lebanon finds itself negotiating with Israel via an Israeli-biased mediator.
The problem for Lebanon right now, as it is trying to fend off yet another Israeli invasion and occupation of its territory on one hand, and to rein in Hezbollah's domestic insurrection against the State and its army, is that it finds itself at the negotiations table facing the hostile Israel and the unreliable and Israel-biased American mediator. To compound the dilemma, official Lebanon is negotiating on behalf of, or despite, its own domestic opponent Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was created by the Iranian theocracy in 1982. It inherited the task of "liberating Palestine" from southern Lebanese territory from its predecessor insurrectionist against the Lebanese state, namely the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) of Yasser Arafat after the latter was evicted by the Israeli invasion of 1982.
Hezbollah refuses to depose its weapons and re-integrate the Lebanese body politic as only a political party beholden only to Lebanese law, and not as an armed militia working at the behest of the Iranian theocracy. The State of Lebanon is torn between two forces: on one hand, US-Israeli pressure to confront Hezbollah militarily when it does not have the means (under-equipped army) or the will (for fear of a civil war) of such a confrontation; and on the other hand, a solid block of opposition by the Lebanese Shiite community represented by Hezbollah and the Amal movement of Parliament Speaker the highly corrupt and mercurial chameleon Nabih Berri.
Without trusting either side, official Lebanon has little choice but to accept the biased American mediator as a guarantor of whatever agreement may be reached between Lebanon and Israel. And even if all the guarantees are given and all the obstacles are ironed out, no one, not even the mediator, can guarantee that Hezbollah (which is not party to the negotiations) will abide the agreement.
In fact, both Hezbollah and Amal are accusing the Lebanese government of President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam of treason, surrender, selling Lebanon to Israel, etc. for simply sitting down at the negotiations table with the sworn enemy Israel. Merely talking to the Israelis is a crime under a Syrian-Iranian inspired Lebanese law, as it breaks the longstanding taboo against ever recognizing the legitimacy of the Zionist state: Talking to Israelis is tantamount to a recognition of Israel.
And tensions are building inside the country between those forging ahead with trying to make a deal with Israel aiming at an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory and those who reject any diplomatic resolution, and the question remains: Can or should the Lebanese side trust any guarantees that the US might offer to ensure Israeli compliance?
On one hand, the historical record says no. The US has always placed Israeli interests on top of its priorities even when those interests are illegal or immoral, and it has always thrown Lebanon under the Saudi, Syrian or Israeli bus depending on the circumstances. On the other hand, the steep chasm that is taking shape between Israel and the US over disagreements over the Iran war and its ricochet on the Hezbollah-Israeli war front does not invite any more confidence that the Americans can deliver on their guarantees. Indeed, it should invite fear of the traditional American backstabbing of Lebanon that has accompanied the tormented country since the late 1960s.
The deal (known as the Framework Agreement) signed last week in Washington DC between Lebanon and Israel is of such complexity in process and time that it is very easy to imagine various points of failure along the way. This, of course, assumes that somehow Hezbollah and the Lebanese Shiites agree to go along, which they have so far categorically rejected. Which means that the deal is certainly likely to fail at the very first test of its implementation, suggesting that the US and Israel have deliberately built "programmed obsolescence" in the deal that could ultimately serve Israel by giving it the pretext of never withdrawing from southern Lebanese territories it currently occupies.
===================================================
Analysis: Lebanon-Israel deal opens long process; with U.S. as Lebanon’s sole guarantor
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun (C) and Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander (2-L) of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) are pictured during a meeting at the presidential palace in Baabda on June 29, 2026. Photo courtesy Lebanese Presidency/UPI
Analysis: Lebanon-Israel deal opens long process; with U.S. as Lebanon’s sole guarantor
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun (C) and Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander (2-L) of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) are pictured during a meeting at the presidential palace in Baabda on June 29, 2026. Photo courtesy Lebanese Presidency/UPI
Dalal Saoud
Tue, June 30, 2026
BEIRUT, Lebanon, June 30 (UPI) -- The United States, which brokered Lebanon and Israel's first direct negotiations and framework agreement, is Lebanon's only guarantor for securing a full Israeli withdrawal from its territory and bringing an end to the decades-long conflict between the two countries, official and diplomatic sources said.
The preliminary agreement, signed last Friday in Washington, marked the beginning of a long and difficult process whose outcome would depend on U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration's sustained and unwavering commitment to advancing the talks.
Lebanon took the daring and risky decision to pursue its own negotiating track, distancing itself from Iran's influence and Hezbollah's dominance in the hope of regaining control of the war-ravaged country and restoring its long-lost sovereignty.
Such a move was driven by the devastating war Israel has been waging against Hezbollah since the Iran-backed group opened a front in support of Gaza on Oct. 8, 2023 and resumed fighting -- after 15 months of inactivity to reorganize its ranks -- in solidarity with Iran on March 2.
The costs were staggering, with Israel reoccupying parts of southern Lebanon -- previously liberated in 2000 largely due to Hezbollah's resistance -- reducing more than 70 villages to ruins and inflicting an unprecedented human and material toll.
Another key factor was that Hezbollah emerged greatly weakened from the war. While it has been regaining some strength and continues battling Israeli forces, it has been unable to stop Israeli ground advances, targeted killings, and the destruction of homes and its infrastructure.
However, the militant group insists that maintaining its armed resistance is Lebanon's strength and refuses to disarm. It rejects the U.S.-mediated direct negotiations and framework agreement with Israel, describing them as a capitulation to Israeli and U.S. demands, and insists that Lebanon remains part of the U.S.-Iran negotiation track.
To Hezbollah, Iran is "the path to salvation."
The framework agreement, reached by Lebanese and Israeli negotiating teams under pressure from Washington after four days of marathon talks, provides for a phased Israeli withdrawal from occupied parts of southern Lebanon to allow the Lebanese Army to "restore effective sovereign authority," beginning with its deployment in two initial pilot zones.
The core of the deal is Hezbollah's disarmament and the dismantling of its military infrastructure, with the Lebanese Army set to launch its mission in two designated pilot zones. If successfully implemented and verified, displaced residents would be allowed to return, and reconstruction could begin, paving the way for further Israeli withdrawals.
That should eventually lead to an end to the state of war and military conflict between the two countries and the establishment of lasting peace.
The United States is playing a central role in the process. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Admiral Brad Cooper visited Beirut on Monday, where he met Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Army commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal to discuss implementing the framework agreement.
A Lebanese official source said the talks focused on the two pilot zones, with U.S. forces overseeing implementation in line with the agreement's security annex, but without "U.S. boots on the ground."
The source explained that implementation will begin with Israeli forces pulling out and the Lebanese Army entering the pilot zones to deploy and verify whether any Hezbollah weapons or military infrastructure remain.
"The Army will ensure that Hezbollah does not re-enter the areas with weapons or fire missiles," he told UPI. "The Americans will be the guarantor and will ensure Israel does not strike, while any party obstructing the deal on the ground will be identified."
The pilot zones will be the first major test and just the start of a process that will take time, covering one area after another.
The official said there will be no direct coordination with Israel, only with the Americans, who will liaise with the Israelis.
Despite the strong objection of Hezbollah and its main Shiite ally -- House Speaker Nabih Berri -- both considering that the agreement could not be implemented and acting as if it does not exist, the source hailed the fact that it was the first time Lebanon has negotiated on its own.
He said, however, that Lebanon would not object if "anything good" for it emerges from Iran's negotiations with the U.S. such as consolidating the cease-fire.
Iran has reportedly maintained that it will not finalize any agreement with Washington unless Lebanon is included in broader efforts to end regional conflicts and Israel fully withdraws from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah remains convinced it will not be abandoned by Tehran.
"We have no problem. The Americans are present in both tracks (Lebanon-Israel and U.S.-Iran) ... but Israel's withdrawal and the subsequent steps will be negotiated by Lebanon," the official source said.
Although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the framework agreement as "a major achievement and a major blow to Iran," he said Israeli forces would remain in the security zone established in southern Lebanon -- as in Gaza and southern Syria -- until Hezbollah is disarmed.
Although the framework agreement "is not perfect and has missed several points," it has put Lebanon on the right track and laid the foundation for Israel's withdrawal, according to Antoine Chedid, Lebanon's former ambassador to the United States.
"Do we have any option other than these negotiations? Does Hezbollah have an alternative after dragging Lebanon into a losing war?" Chedid asked in an interview with UPI.
He said the costs of the war were staggering, making negotiations "the only path," with the U.S. role "a source of strength" and Washington determined to make the process work.
He said Netanyahu and other Israeli officials are "maneuvering to raise the ceiling of the negotiations to get more than they can," but "there will be gradual withdrawals that will lead to their complete withdrawal" from Lebanon.
"That would require a great deal of work and the U.S. putting pressure on Israel," Chedid said. "It would also have to be matched by the Lebanese state assuming exclusive control over weapons and the sole authority to decide on war and peace, which would require resolving the issue of Hezbollah's arsenal."
He dismissed Hezbollah's calls to rely on Iran, saying that involving Tehran in Lebanon's negotiations "would be a pretext for Israel to remain in southern Lebanon forever."
Iran, which has funded and armed Hezbollah for 40 years, turning it into one of its most valuable assets in the region, would not easily relinquish such an important card in its negotiations with Washington.
"It will hold on to the Hezbollah card in order to sell it at the proper time and for the right price," Chedid said.
The biggest challenge would thus be the U.S. keeping the momentum, remaining engaged in the Israeli-Lebanese track, and not shifting course or turning its back on Lebanon, he added.
Tue, June 30, 2026
BEIRUT, Lebanon, June 30 (UPI) -- The United States, which brokered Lebanon and Israel's first direct negotiations and framework agreement, is Lebanon's only guarantor for securing a full Israeli withdrawal from its territory and bringing an end to the decades-long conflict between the two countries, official and diplomatic sources said.
The preliminary agreement, signed last Friday in Washington, marked the beginning of a long and difficult process whose outcome would depend on U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration's sustained and unwavering commitment to advancing the talks.
Lebanon took the daring and risky decision to pursue its own negotiating track, distancing itself from Iran's influence and Hezbollah's dominance in the hope of regaining control of the war-ravaged country and restoring its long-lost sovereignty.
Such a move was driven by the devastating war Israel has been waging against Hezbollah since the Iran-backed group opened a front in support of Gaza on Oct. 8, 2023 and resumed fighting -- after 15 months of inactivity to reorganize its ranks -- in solidarity with Iran on March 2.
The costs were staggering, with Israel reoccupying parts of southern Lebanon -- previously liberated in 2000 largely due to Hezbollah's resistance -- reducing more than 70 villages to ruins and inflicting an unprecedented human and material toll.
Another key factor was that Hezbollah emerged greatly weakened from the war. While it has been regaining some strength and continues battling Israeli forces, it has been unable to stop Israeli ground advances, targeted killings, and the destruction of homes and its infrastructure.
However, the militant group insists that maintaining its armed resistance is Lebanon's strength and refuses to disarm. It rejects the U.S.-mediated direct negotiations and framework agreement with Israel, describing them as a capitulation to Israeli and U.S. demands, and insists that Lebanon remains part of the U.S.-Iran negotiation track.
To Hezbollah, Iran is "the path to salvation."
The framework agreement, reached by Lebanese and Israeli negotiating teams under pressure from Washington after four days of marathon talks, provides for a phased Israeli withdrawal from occupied parts of southern Lebanon to allow the Lebanese Army to "restore effective sovereign authority," beginning with its deployment in two initial pilot zones.
The core of the deal is Hezbollah's disarmament and the dismantling of its military infrastructure, with the Lebanese Army set to launch its mission in two designated pilot zones. If successfully implemented and verified, displaced residents would be allowed to return, and reconstruction could begin, paving the way for further Israeli withdrawals.
That should eventually lead to an end to the state of war and military conflict between the two countries and the establishment of lasting peace.
The United States is playing a central role in the process. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Admiral Brad Cooper visited Beirut on Monday, where he met Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Army commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal to discuss implementing the framework agreement.
A Lebanese official source said the talks focused on the two pilot zones, with U.S. forces overseeing implementation in line with the agreement's security annex, but without "U.S. boots on the ground."
The source explained that implementation will begin with Israeli forces pulling out and the Lebanese Army entering the pilot zones to deploy and verify whether any Hezbollah weapons or military infrastructure remain.
"The Army will ensure that Hezbollah does not re-enter the areas with weapons or fire missiles," he told UPI. "The Americans will be the guarantor and will ensure Israel does not strike, while any party obstructing the deal on the ground will be identified."
The pilot zones will be the first major test and just the start of a process that will take time, covering one area after another.
The official said there will be no direct coordination with Israel, only with the Americans, who will liaise with the Israelis.
Despite the strong objection of Hezbollah and its main Shiite ally -- House Speaker Nabih Berri -- both considering that the agreement could not be implemented and acting as if it does not exist, the source hailed the fact that it was the first time Lebanon has negotiated on its own.
He said, however, that Lebanon would not object if "anything good" for it emerges from Iran's negotiations with the U.S. such as consolidating the cease-fire.
Iran has reportedly maintained that it will not finalize any agreement with Washington unless Lebanon is included in broader efforts to end regional conflicts and Israel fully withdraws from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah remains convinced it will not be abandoned by Tehran.
"We have no problem. The Americans are present in both tracks (Lebanon-Israel and U.S.-Iran) ... but Israel's withdrawal and the subsequent steps will be negotiated by Lebanon," the official source said.
Although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the framework agreement as "a major achievement and a major blow to Iran," he said Israeli forces would remain in the security zone established in southern Lebanon -- as in Gaza and southern Syria -- until Hezbollah is disarmed.
Although the framework agreement "is not perfect and has missed several points," it has put Lebanon on the right track and laid the foundation for Israel's withdrawal, according to Antoine Chedid, Lebanon's former ambassador to the United States.
"Do we have any option other than these negotiations? Does Hezbollah have an alternative after dragging Lebanon into a losing war?" Chedid asked in an interview with UPI.
He said the costs of the war were staggering, making negotiations "the only path," with the U.S. role "a source of strength" and Washington determined to make the process work.
He said Netanyahu and other Israeli officials are "maneuvering to raise the ceiling of the negotiations to get more than they can," but "there will be gradual withdrawals that will lead to their complete withdrawal" from Lebanon.
"That would require a great deal of work and the U.S. putting pressure on Israel," Chedid said. "It would also have to be matched by the Lebanese state assuming exclusive control over weapons and the sole authority to decide on war and peace, which would require resolving the issue of Hezbollah's arsenal."
He dismissed Hezbollah's calls to rely on Iran, saying that involving Tehran in Lebanon's negotiations "would be a pretext for Israel to remain in southern Lebanon forever."
Iran, which has funded and armed Hezbollah for 40 years, turning it into one of its most valuable assets in the region, would not easily relinquish such an important card in its negotiations with Washington.
"It will hold on to the Hezbollah card in order to sell it at the proper time and for the right price," Chedid said.
The biggest challenge would thus be the U.S. keeping the momentum, remaining engaged in the Israeli-Lebanese track, and not shifting course or turning its back on Lebanon, he added.
