Field Escalation in Lebanon as Israel Seeks to Entrench Security Belt Ahead of Washington Talks

A map released by the Israeli army showing what it calls a “security zone” in south Lebanon. (Reuters)
A map released by the Israeli army showing what it calls a “security zone” in south Lebanon. (Reuters)
TT

Field Escalation in Lebanon as Israel Seeks to Entrench Security Belt Ahead of Washington Talks

A map released by the Israeli army showing what it calls a “security zone” in south Lebanon. (Reuters)
A map released by the Israeli army showing what it calls a “security zone” in south Lebanon. (Reuters)

The map published by the Israeli army showing the areas where its forces are deployed in south Lebanon has raised questions about the implications of the US-Iranian agreement, as military operations continue and the issues of withdrawal and redeployment remain tied to anticipated Lebanese-Israeli negotiations in Washington.

While Israel speaks of a “security zone” inside Lebanese territory, Israeli army spokesman Avichay Adraee said Israeli forces are deployed “based on operational necessity” within an area extending roughly 10 kilometers into Lebanon, with the aim of removing what he described as threats and improving the defense of residents in northern Israel.

On the ground, two people were killed and another wounded in an Israeli drone strike that targeted a vehicle at the Kfar Tebnit roundabout. Drones also struck Hadatha without causing casualties, while another drone dropped a bomb on Beit Yahoun, wounding two people. An Israeli drone also dropped a stun grenade on a family inside a house in Nabatieh al-Fawqa near the teachers’ college.

Artillery shelling struck the outskirts of Nabatieh al-Fawqa, while the Israeli army carried out bulldozing operations in Khiam.

As Lebanese army troops and members of the Al-Risala Health Emergency Association entered Hadatha, Israeli forces opened fire toward civilians and Lebanese soldiers in the town. Villages in the eastern sector and the Marjayoun district remained relatively calm compared with other parts of southern Lebanon.

A field source in south Lebanon told Asharq Al-Awsat that the map “effectively reflects an attempt to impose a new reality on the ground following the US-Iranian understanding by treating vast areas of south Lebanon as zones under Israeli security and military control.”

The source said the boundaries shown on the map extend beyond what is known in some places as the “Yellow Line” and include areas where the Israeli army was unable to establish a permanent presence during the war, such as Ali al-Taher Hill and the southeastern outskirts of Hadatha.

The source noted that the Lebanese army is deployed inside Hadatha itself, while Israeli forces continue attempting to advance toward the surrounding high ground.

According to the source, “including these areas on the Israeli map has heightened residents’ fears and slowed the return of displaced people to Nabatieh and its surroundings.”

The concern, the source added, extends beyond Nabatieh city to include Dweir, Jibshit, Harouf, Zebdine, Mifadoun, Shoukine, Kfar Tebnit and Nabatieh al-Fawqa. These areas still lack basic living conditions, while near-daily artillery shelling continues, prompting many residents to delay their return.

The source said, “The boundaries Israel is drawing today closely resemble those that existed before its withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000, stretching from the western sector through the central sector and into large parts of the eastern sector toward Khiam.”

Israel did not include in its current map some areas it previously occupied as far as the outskirts of Jezzine, the source said. In practice, however, it has treated the entire western and central sectors, together with the highlands extending east of Nabatieh toward the Marjayoun-Khiam axis, as falling within its security sphere of control.

The source said the most significant outcome of the period following the US-Iranian understanding has been Israel’s effort to draw what it described as “occupation boundaries” and establish them as a fait accompli on the ground by effectively turning these areas into an undeclared security belt.

According to the source, the line Israel is seeking to consolidate runs through the central sector along the Bint Jbeil and Wadi al-Salouqi axes, reaching Hadatha, Baraachit and Beit Yahoun.

Although Israeli forces are not physically deployed inside these towns, the source said they are treated as part of an advanced security zone and a new line of contact in south Lebanon.

No Signs of Israeli Withdrawal

Retired Brig. Gen. Bassam Yassin told Asharq Al-Awsat that the US-Iranian agreement has not yet translated into any tangible changes on the ground in south Lebanon.

The situation on the ground, he said, still reflects continued Israeli deployment in the areas under its control, while issues related to withdrawal and post-war arrangements remain under discussion in negotiations currently taking place in Washington.

Yassin said the map recently published by the Israeli army suggests that Israel views the areas it marked as territory under its military control, “as though it is saying these areas are under Israeli occupation, should not be approached, and that any movement within them will be treated as a security threat.”

He said one of the most important of these areas is Ali al-Taher. Many people, he noted, reduce it to a hill or small elevation, “when in fact Ali al-Taher is a mountain ridge extending between three and four kilometers from the area around Kfar Tebnit toward Kfar Rumman. Including large parts of it in what Israel considers an area under its control therefore carries important operational implications.”

“The Israeli occupation is currently consolidating the positions where it is deployed, while attempts to advance toward Ali al-Taher are still continuing,” he said.

Artillery and rocket fire in the Nabatieh area has also continued in recent weeks, he added, stressing that “there are still no real indications of Israeli withdrawals, contrary to what some believe.”

Yassin said the issues related to an Israeli withdrawal, redeployment or the deployment of the Lebanese army “are not decided on the ground but are being discussed within the framework of ongoing Lebanese meetings and negotiations in Washington.”

Any talk of withdrawal or new arrangements, he added, “remains premature at this stage.”

No Withdrawal

Meanwhile, Israel’s Channel 14 reported that “the future of the Israeli deployment in south Lebanon will be discussed during negotiations with the Lebanese side in Washington.”

Israel’s public broadcaster also reported that the issue of withdrawing from positions where Israeli forces remain deployed inside Lebanon will be raised during the next round of negotiations.

Yedioth Ahronoth reported that “the Israeli army has demanded that it retain a buffer zone inside south Lebanon while insisting on the dismantling of weapons in the south.”



End of UNIFIL Mission Impacts Hundreds of Jobs in South Lebanon

Head of Mission and Force Commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Major General Diodato Abagnara of the Italian Army reviews the troops at the UNIFIL base, near Mansouri, Southern Lebanon, September 19, 2026. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
Head of Mission and Force Commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Major General Diodato Abagnara of the Italian Army reviews the troops at the UNIFIL base, near Mansouri, Southern Lebanon, September 19, 2026. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
TT

End of UNIFIL Mission Impacts Hundreds of Jobs in South Lebanon

Head of Mission and Force Commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Major General Diodato Abagnara of the Italian Army reviews the troops at the UNIFIL base, near Mansouri, Southern Lebanon, September 19, 2026. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
Head of Mission and Force Commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Major General Diodato Abagnara of the Italian Army reviews the troops at the UNIFIL base, near Mansouri, Southern Lebanon, September 19, 2026. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

As UNIFIL’s mandate in Lebanon draws to a close, the implications of its withdrawal extend beyond military and security operations to the labor market in southern Lebanon, where the mission’s decades-long presence has sustained hundreds of jobs and supported local businesses that depend on its demand for goods and services.

As job cuts begin ahead of the withdrawal process, which is set to gather pace at the end of this year, concerns are mounting over the economic and social impact on employees and their families, as well as on small and medium-sized businesses that depend on spending generated by the international force’s presence.

400 Local Employees Work for UNIFIL

According to UNIFIL spokesperson Candice Ardell, the mission currently employs around 400 local staff, most of whom are based in southern Lebanon, while some positions are based in Beirut.

In comments to Asharq Al-Awsat, Ardell said local employees perform a wide range of duties, from the technical work required to support the mission to security, translation, media, political and civil affairs, among other functions.

Most of these positions are based in the south. Many employees live in the area, while others commute to work from elsewhere, she added.

Ardell denied that job cuts had begun as part of UNIFIL’s force reduction and withdrawal process, explaining that the process was expected to start after Dec. 31, 2026.

Families Depend on UNIFIL Salaries

In the border town of Rmeish, 85 families still have members employed directly by UNIFIL on a permanent basis, earning monthly salaries on which they and their families depend for their livelihoods.

Milad Alam, a former Rmeish mayor, told Asharq Al-Awsat in an earlier interview that around 250 other families also have members working for companies contracted by UNIFIL, adding that they, too, stand to lose their monthly sources of income.

Researcher Mohammad Shamseddine said the number of people employed by or contracted to UNIFIL had fallen significantly, noting that the current workforce was well below the roughly 1,200 employees it had previously numbered.

Annual Losses Estimated at $45 Million to $55 Million

Economist Jassem Ajaka warned that UNIFIL’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon would have economic and financial repercussions extending well beyond the south, affecting the Lebanese economy as a whole. The fallout would include reduced foreign currency inflows, job losses and weaker trade and investment, while placing additional pressure on the state treasury.

In comments to Asharq Al-Awsat, Ajaka said UNIFIL’s annual budget stood at about $553 million, estimating that the withdrawal would result in a direct loss of $45 million to $55 million a year in foreign currency inflows, as international forces cease spending locally on contracts with domestic suppliers, restaurants, shops and supply chains.

Ajaka estimated that UNIFIL’s withdrawal would eliminate $15 million to $22 million in annual wages for Lebanese staff, whose average net annual compensation ranges from $15,000 to $25,000.

He estimated that UNIFIL’s withdrawal would add $25 million to $40 million in annual costs for the Lebanese treasury, as the Lebanese army takes over expenses previously covered through cooperation with the international force, putting further pressure on public finances and potentially widening the primary budget deficit.

The economist concluded saying that the real estate sector would be among the hardest hit, particularly in Naqoura, Tyre, Marjayoun and Bint Jbeil. The termination of hundreds of rental contracts held by UNIFIL’s civilian and military personnel could result in annual losses of $10 million to $18 million. He also warned that commercial and residential property values in affected areas could fall by 25% to 45%.


Libya Approves Contentious Türkiye Deal Over Mediterranean Waters

The Libyan parliament meets on Tuesday. (Parliamentary spokesman Abdullah Bliheg)
The Libyan parliament meets on Tuesday. (Parliamentary spokesman Abdullah Bliheg)
TT

Libya Approves Contentious Türkiye Deal Over Mediterranean Waters

The Libyan parliament meets on Tuesday. (Parliamentary spokesman Abdullah Bliheg)
The Libyan parliament meets on Tuesday. (Parliamentary spokesman Abdullah Bliheg)

Libya’s east-based parliament unanimously approved a contested eastern Mediterranean maritime agreement with Türkiye on Tuesday as Turkish chief of intelligence Ibrahim Kalin visited the capital Tripoli.

The House of Representatives voted to adopt the memorandum of understanding signed in 2019 by Türkiye and Libya’s then-government in Tripoli, the Government of National Accord, which was rejected by Egypt, Greece and Cyprus.

Greece’s Foreign Ministry rejected the vote, saying in a statement that it “does not alter the illegal, invalid and groundless nature of the memorandum.”

The ministry said Türkiye and Libya do not have opposite or adjacent coasts that could provide a legal basis for delimiting maritime zones. It said the agreement disregards the rights of Greek islands, which lie between the Turkish and Libyan coasts.

“Geography and the international Law of the Sea cannot be changed by unilateral, legally unfounded parliamentary decisions,” the ministry said. It added that Greece had informed its partners and allies and “will take all appropriate measures to safeguard its sovereign rights.”

Cyprus also condemned the vote, calling the memorandum “illegal, null, and void.”

The Libyan-Türkiye agreement defines maritime jurisdiction areas between the two countries in the Mediterranean, where major natural gas discoveries in recent years have fueled competing claims to offshore waters.

Lawmakers also repealed two resolutions passed in 2020, parliamentary spokesman Abdullah Bliheg said. One rejected agreements with Türkiye, while the other cut political ties with Ankara. Parliament had opposed the accords at a time when Türkiye was backing the Tripoli government against Libyan National Army Khalifa Haftar’s forces.

Head of the Government of National Unity Abdul Hamid al-Dbeibah meets with Turkish chief of intelligence Ibrahim Kalin in Tripoli. (HOKOMITNA platform)

Officials in both camps welcomed Tuesday’s vote. Saddam Haftar, Khalifa Haftar’s son, said in a statement that the decisions reflected “a move toward overcoming disputes of the past.”

He called the maritime agreement a tool to protect Libya’s economic interests in the Mediterranean and described Türkiye as “a significant regional power.”

The Foreign Ministry of the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity, led by Abdul Hamid al-Dbeibah, called the vote “a positive development” for relations with Türkiye.

It said cooperation would proceed “in accordance with the relevant rules and principles of international law.”

Dbeibah also met Tuesday in Tripoli with Kalin. A government statement said they discussed security, regional developments, and migration.

The European Union has said the agreement violates the rights of third countries. Türkiye is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Egypt also rejected the accord. In August 2020, Cairo and Athens signed their own maritime agreement in response. Greek officials have said it effectively nullifies the Turkish-Libyan deal.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty said he discussed the situation in Libya and the eastern Mediterranean in a phone call with his Greek counterpart on Tuesday, without directly mentioning the vote.


Kfara Facility Raises New Questions Over Military Site Verification in Southern Lebanon

Vehicles pass damaged buildings near a Lebanese army checkpoint in the southern Lebanese town of Kafra on June 15, 2026 (AFP)
Vehicles pass damaged buildings near a Lebanese army checkpoint in the southern Lebanese town of Kafra on June 15, 2026 (AFP)
TT

Kfara Facility Raises New Questions Over Military Site Verification in Southern Lebanon

Vehicles pass damaged buildings near a Lebanese army checkpoint in the southern Lebanese town of Kafra on June 15, 2026 (AFP)
Vehicles pass damaged buildings near a Lebanese army checkpoint in the southern Lebanese town of Kafra on June 15, 2026 (AFP)

Israel's claim that Hezbollah has resumed military activity at a facility in southern Lebanon previously entered by the Lebanese army has renewed questions over how military sites south of the Litani River are secured and whether measures are in place to prevent their reuse.

The allegation, involving a facility in the town of Kafra, came as US-sponsored military talks were set to take place in Tampa, Florida, on Tuesday and Wednesday, focusing on security provisions of the "framework agreement" between Lebanon and Israel.

Israeli allegations raise questions over verification

Israeli military spokesperson Ella Waweya said the Lebanese army was asked through a US monitoring mechanism in December 2025 to address a facility in Kafra allegedly used by Hezbollah to store weapons.

The Lebanese army said it had taken the necessary measures, but Hezbollah continued using the site and moving equipment out, according to Waweya.

She released footage purportedly showing Hezbollah members loading weapons onto a truck later targeted by Israeli forces.

The Israeli statement also accused individuals within the Lebanese army of coordinating with Hezbollah, enabling the group to remove military equipment before security measures could be carried out.

Neither the allegations nor the date of the footage could be independently verified. There was no immediate Lebanese response.

Israeli claims aim to pressure army, reset negotiations: Expert

Retired Brigadier General Dr. Khalil Helou said the timing of Israel's announcement, just hours before the Tampa talks, was calculated to pressure the Lebanese army, undermine confidence in its capabilities and force additional conditions that could send negotiations back to square one.

"Israel uses such announcements at carefully chosen political and military moments, regardless of the nature or scale of the reported activity," Helou told Asharq Al-Awsat.

He said Israeli claims about Hezbollah movements often coincide with negotiations or Lebanese army deployments, portraying the military as incapable of fulfilling its responsibilities.

"The Israelis know perfectly well that this is not true," he said, accusing Israel itself of obstructing the army's effective deployment in the south.

Helou pointed to the town of Zawtar, where he said the Lebanese army was deployed in the western sector while Israeli forces operated in the east.

"Israeli forces are carrying out explosions and demolitions, and whenever the Lebanese army moves, it comes under attack or shelling near its positions," he said.

He argued that Israel continued to behave as though the war had not ended, linking that stance to Israeli elections and calls by some ministers to annex Lebanese territory.

Helou also cited tunnels dug by Hezbollah between 2014 and 2018, saying Israel had known about them before publicly revealing their existence.

"The timing of Israeli statements and announcements carries political and military significance. No announcement can be viewed in isolation from the circumstances surrounding it," he said.

Footage could become leverage for tougher withdrawal terms

Retired Brigadier General Khaled Hamadeh also questioned the timing of the Israeli announcement, saying it was intended to put pressure on Lebanon's negotiating delegation.

He said Israel could use the footage to demand stricter verification measures to ensure southern areas are free of Hezbollah's military presence, while making its withdrawal conditional on security guarantees that could prolong the occupation.

For Hamadeh, the crucial question is not simply what the images show, but when they were taken and whether they reflect current conditions.

"Are these recent images or do they date back to an earlier period? Were they taken today or during the previous war? We cannot say for certain without verifying their timing and content," he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

He said the Lebanese army might be unable to definitively confirm or refute Israel's account, particularly if it had no presence in the area or could not gain access to verify conditions on the ground.

"If the Lebanese army has declared control over the area south of the Litani, and Israel then says Hezbollah is still operating militarily from a facility in Kafra, Israel will use that to challenge the effectiveness of Lebanese measures," Hamadeh said.

"It will argue that the declared control has failed to prevent Hezbollah from continuing its military activity."

Hamadeh doubted Hezbollah was preparing to launch another war from the area, but warned that Israel could exploit the allegations, regardless of their accuracy, to reopen negotiations over verification procedures and demand further guarantees before withdrawing.

"I do not believe Hezbollah intends to launch a new war from this area. The problem is how Israel uses this information, regardless of whether it is accurate, to reopen the debate over verification measures and demand additional guarantees before withdrawing," he said.

The absence of a trusted, mutually agreed verification body, he argued, gives Israel considerable room to maneuver.

Israel could cite continuing Hezbollah military activity to justify refusing to withdraw, while Lebanon lacks sufficient leverage to compel it to honor its commitments.

Hamadeh warned that tying withdrawal to further security demands could revive proposals for a drawn-out timetable.

"The agreement reached is supposed to lead to an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory," he said.

"But giving Israel additional pretexts could reopen the door to a prolonged, phased withdrawal, potentially stretching over five years, on the grounds that the Lebanese state needs enough time to dismantle Hezbollah's military infrastructure and confiscate its weapons."