US President Donald Trump announced a 10-day ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, opening the door to direct negotiations between the two sides.
Without a truce, the war between Israel and Hezbollah would remain open-ended, bringing more destruction and displacement to southern Lebanon.
But a ceasefire alone is not enough unless it runs in parallel with Lebanese-Israeli talks and can be extended to allow time for a deal, a ministerial source told Asharq Al-Awsat.
Trump’s move also satisfied Iran by involving it in the contacts that led to the truce, while aligning with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who made a ceasefire a precondition for negotiations.
Washington brings Iran in
Washington drew Iran into the ceasefire in hopes of extracting concessions by pressing Hezbollah to uphold the truce and accept joining the government in direct talks, the source said.
The talks still face opposition from the Shiite duo, Hezbollah and Amal, despite mounting local and international pressure to unify behind a Lebanese delegation expected to be headed by former ambassador Simon Karam.
No meeting is expected soon between Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House under Trump’s sponsorship, at least during the ceasefire.
Any such meeting should seal a comprehensive agreement, not launch negotiations, the source said.
He added that there is no need to rush. The priority is for Washington to press Israel to offer incentives that could help secure a deal. Without that, a meeting would be meaningless as long as Israeli forces remain, residents are barred from returning south of the Litani River, Lebanese prisoners are held, and towns face systematic destruction.
Under such conditions, the source asked, would a meeting simply impose a reality rejected by Aoun, who insists the timing is wrong unless Israel shows goodwill on the ground toward ending its occupation.
Separating Iran from Lebanon
The source said a ceasefire is essential to start talks, but involving Iran does not mean Lebanon will tie its fate to Tehran’s negotiations with Washington, contrary to claims by a Shiite duo source.
That source suggested Lebanon would be part of a broader US-Iran settlement that could ease tensions, without explaining how this would reassure the Lebanese.
Washington’s outreach to Iran to help resume talks in Islamabad does not mean handing Lebanon’s file to Tehran, the source said, noting strong domestic, Arab and international opposition to linking the two tracks.
He questioned how Iran can negotiate directly with the United States while Lebanon is denied the same option in the absence of alternatives.
He also asked what alternative exists, and whether Lebanon can withstand another war after Hezbollah backed Gaza and Iran without returning to the government’s authority.
He raised doubts over how returning residents can be reassured, as areas south of the Litani have been devastated and are no longer fit for living.
Residents have the right to regain stability and ease fears about their future while awaiting reconstruction, which hinges on Hezbollah accepting the state’s monopoly on arms as a core item in negotiations. In return, Washington would need to secure Israel’s withdrawal and complete border demarcation in line with the armistice.
The question remains whether the Shiite duo will continue to reject direct talks overseen by Aoun, who insists on fully liberating the south.
That puts pressure on Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who has voiced reservations, as Aoun and international actors continue to seek a unified Lebanese position to prevent the ceasefire from unraveling.
