Posts

The imposition of a ceasefire in Lebanon, stemming from the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, is rightly perceived as an event with clear negative implications for Israel:

• In the Lebanese arena, Israel is compelled to take into account the U.S. position, which has committed to an immediate and permanent ceasefire across all theaters of fighting, including Lebanon, while the IDF has not yet completed its missions and remains deeply deployed inside Lebanon while facing threats from Hezbollah. The memorandum also includes a commitment to preserving Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, which Iran and Hezbollah interpret as a demand for the withdrawal of IDF forces from Lebanon and may encourage international pressure for a full withdrawal from southern Lebanon up to the Blue Line.
• Vis-à-vis Iran, linking the Lebanese front to U.S.-Iran understandings reinforces the Iranian narrative of the “unity of arenas,” whereas Israel has sought to separate them. At the same time, Iran is portrayed as playing a seemingly positive role in Lebanon — as a party safeguarding its interests and the security of its population — while in practice its primary objective remains ensuring Hezbollah’s continued survival.

At the same time, this development should not be viewed as solely negative. It creates a new framing of events: the halting and restraint of military activity, alongside an opportunity for diplomatic initiatives. In this context, Israel — having already recognized the difficulty of shaping a new security reality in the north through military means alone — is required to formulate a new and updated strategy toward the Lebanese arena, making judicious use of the levers at its disposal, including:

• Shifting the focus to the diplomatic arena and accelerating direct talks with the Lebanese leadership in Washington, which are set to resume next week, while demanding an upgrade in their level in order to enhance their effectiveness, and leveraging both the Lebanese leadership’s commitment to continuing these talks and the broad public support for them in Lebanon.
• Framing steps to reduce IDF activity in southern Lebanon as part of the understandings reached within these talks. It is important that any Israeli “concession” be granted to the Lebanese government, enabling it to present these as its own achievements resulting from the direct negotiations (rather than those of Hezbollah). In this context, Israel could also consider responding to some of the Lebanese demands that have not yet been addressed (release of prisoners; initial steps to assist the displaced population; and expansion of the pilot for transferring areas cleared of Hezbollah presence to the Lebanese Armed Forces).
• Reestablishing a constructive dialogue with the United States and demanding renewed consideration of Israel’s security interests in Lebanon — both regarding IDF operations on the ground, in light of the expected fragility of the ceasefire and the need to address immediate threats to its forces, and within the diplomatic track in Washington, where the United States plays a central and significant role.
• Arguing that the commitment in the memorandum of understanding to safeguard Lebanon’s sovereignty also entails a demand that Iran cease its interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs and halt its efforts to build Hezbollah as an independent militia.