An Arab diplomatic push is moving alongside talks involving Pakistan to increase pressure for a ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, after the country was pulled into a wider contest between Iran and the United States on one side, and Israel and Hezbollah on the other, Lebanese sources told Asharq Al-Awsat.
The phased effort would begin with enforcing a ceasefire, followed by a plan to carry out subsequent steps, the sources said.
Details of the Iranian-US understanding have yet to be announced, including whether Lebanon is included and under what formula.
But Israeli leaks offered no sign of calm on the Lebanese front.
Israel’s Channel 14 quoted an Israeli source as saying “the situation in Lebanon will remain as it is,” adding that Israel would “retain freedom of action against any threat inside Lebanese territory.”
The source said: “Iran’s attempts to link the arenas have failed.”
Lebanese sources, however, do not see the two files as separate in practice, even as Lebanon pursues an independent track through bilateral negotiations with Israel in Washington and prepares for a new round of talks.
Any US-Iranian understanding “will inevitably reflect on the Lebanese file, and we hope it will,” the sources said. The two sides concerned, they added, “can impose arrangements” through pressure from Washington on Tel Aviv and from Tehran on Hezbollah.
Supporting the Arab push
As the outcome of the Iranian-US talks takes shape, another factor has entered the Lebanese scene: an Arab effort to prepare the ground for any shift in those negotiations.
Lebanese sources following international contacts said a friendly Arab push on Lebanon’s behalf had gained momentum over the past two days and was working to shape a position that could support the negotiations.
Such a position, the sources said, “would pave the way for a tripartite meeting” between President Joseph Aoun, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam “to assess the situation and proceed with a plan that begins with implementing a ceasefire and carrying out the post-ceasefire phase.”
The effort is moving on several tracks, the sources said. It begins with enforcing a ceasefire, then moves to further steps: withdrawals by both sides, with the Israeli army pulling out of occupied territory and Hezbollah withdrawing its fighters; deployment of the Lebanese army; and the handover of Hezbollah’s weapons.
The process would be backed by international guarantees to prevent renewed fighting, allowing residents to return and restore stability in the south.
A helpful domestic development also emerged over the past week, with renewed contact between Aoun and Berri. The speaker is handling internal talks with Hezbollah.
Israel’s “intransigence” and Hezbollah’s insistence
Despite the regional and international moves, Lebanon is pressing ahead with its Washington negotiating track with Israel in pursuit of a ceasefire, a goal on which the Lebanese president has insisted.
Sessions are scheduled for June 22, 23 and 24, Lebanese ministerial sources told Asharq Al-Awsat. The first meeting will be military-diplomatic, the second day will be limited to military talks, and the third will be devoted to diplomacy.
So far, however, all initiatives have collided with Israeli “intransigence” and Hezbollah’s insistence on continuing the fight.
Israel has not provided answers to Lebanese demands in previous sessions, the sources said. At the latest session, Lebanon’s ambassador threatened to leave before US Secretary of State Marco Rubio intervened, the Lebanese presidency said last week.
The Israeli side “is intransigent and has not offered anything that would move the negotiations forward,” the sources said, citing its insistence on linking any step, including a ceasefire or a model zone, to Hezbollah’s prior disarmament.
Hezbollah, for its part, has told mediators it will not give answers before a full and comprehensive ceasefire across Lebanese territory. It has also halted contact with Aoun.
Caught between those positions, Lebanon has received US support for shielding Beirut and its southern suburbs from bombardment, but not enough pressure to secure a ceasefire in the south, the sources said.
The Israeli side “has enough freedom of movement in the south to continue bombardment and fighting,” they added, describing a reality in which some areas, namely the south, appear designated for combat while others remain spared.
The model zone
The previous negotiating session proposed a “pilot zone” for a model weapons-free area from which both sides would withdraw.
But the proposal never got a real chance to succeed before a practical implementation plan became clear. Hezbollah and Israel both rejected it, according to the sources.
The plan also carries risks for the Lebanese army if implemented without a ceasefire. It would leave troops unable to move safely between combat zones and amid incoming fire, placing soldiers directly in danger.
Awaiting Hezbollah’s answers
Against this deadlock, Lebanon is watching the Iranian-US talks and their possible impact at home.
Sources following the domestic push said, “Hezbollah’s margin for maneuver is narrowing,” and that the group must now provide answers on whether it will withdraw from the proposed model zones and whether it will hand over its weapons under any initiative.
It remains unclear whether, if Hezbollah agrees, it would provide such guarantees to the Lebanese state or to the Iranian negotiator.
“If it rejects both points, it must also provide an alternative to stop the war,” the sources said.
Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, Loyalty to the Resistance, on Friday condemned “the latest round of direct negotiations” and renewed its rejection “in full and in detail of all the unjust outcomes of the meeting, which imposed unilateral obligations on Lebanon.”
The bloc said it rejected “the conditions and dictates put forward by the enemy and adopted by the Lebanese negotiating delegation, despite the commitments containing no reference to what the enemy should commit to in terms of halting hostile operations, withdrawing from our land, the return of the displaced and reconstruction, which constitute national priorities and constants that the political authority should not overlook.”
