Renewed escalation between the United States and Iran has raised fears in Lebanon that conflict could spread to its southern border, as implementation of a framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel remains stalled and Israeli military operations continue.
Washington has resumed strikes on Iran, while Tehran has responded by targeting US bases in the region.
The developments have shifted attention to the possible impact of US-Iranian tensions on Lebanon, where the violence has been contained in recent months despite continued Israeli airstrikes, assassinations and demolitions. Israel has insisted on remaining in what it calls a “security zone” in southern Lebanon.
Retired Brigadier General Hassan Jouni said the escalation did not necessarily signal the collapse of the US-Iranian agreement or a permanent halt to negotiations.
He said it could represent a period of mutual pressure before the two sides return to the agreement after addressing disputed points.
“The United States used military force more than once and on a wide scale over about 40 days, and this is the result that force produced,” Jouni told Asharq Al-Awsat.
He said the outcome could encourage both sides to continue maneuvering within the agreement’s limits rather than abandon it entirely.
Jouni said the Lebanese front was directly tied to the conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel.
“If war resumes between Iran and the United States, I do not think Hezbollah will remain on the sidelines,” he said.
He added that the current situation in southern Lebanon did not serve Hezbollah’s interests and that the group could view a renewed confrontation as an opportunity to alter the existing balance.
“If the agreement between Washington and Tehran is disrupted and war returns, Hezbollah is likely to return to confrontation as well, in an attempt to restore its gains or improve its position in any later settlement,” he said.
Retired Brigadier General Naji Malaeb also said the latest US-Iranian developments did not necessarily mean the collapse of the path toward an understanding.
He said the escalation remained contained, while Washington appeared increasingly focused on implementing the agreement concerning Lebanon.
“Talk of the agreement with Iran being over does not necessarily mean that it has fallen apart permanently, because Tehran itself has an interest in preserving room for an understanding if conditions allow,” Malaeb told Asharq Al-Awsat.
He said the responses had so far remained measured.
Concerning Lebanon, Malaeb said growing official frustration with the outcome of negotiations reflected a belief that the results had fallen short of Lebanese expectations and that US guarantees had been insufficient.
He said Lebanon’s initial refusal to attend the next round of negotiations in Rome was linked to the meeting’s format.
“It was not acceptable for it to appear as a direct Lebanese-Israeli meeting with low-level US representation,” he remarked.
Lebanon changed its position after Washington said the meetings would be held at the US Embassy in Rome and managed by US officials, Malaeb said.
He added that Lebanon tied its participation to the implementation of the first part of the agreement, particularly the pilot arrangement in two areas, before meetings scheduled for July 15 and 16
Malaeb note the recent US activity showed direct interest in the Lebanese file, citing the US ambassador’s meetings with Lebanese officials, a lengthy meeting with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri – a key Hezbollah ally - and a visit by US Central Command chief General Brad Cooper.
He said the appointment of US General Joseph Clearfield to oversee the agreement’s implementation, along with reports that he would move to Lebanon and work from the US Embassy, was a further sign of US seriousness.
Malaeb said Iran knew it would not receive permanent guarantees and would therefore continue to preserve its regional allies for as long as possible.
He stressed Hezbollah’s tougher position reflected Iran’s stance.
“I do not expect a major development unless Iran instructs Hezbollah to move outside the ceasefire framework and continue resisting the Israeli presence,” he added.
