Lebanese-US efforts to secure a ceasefire have entered a prolonged “open-ended pause,” with no clear indication of when it might end, while the decisive factor remains tied to developments on the ground as the war between Hezbollah and Israel in the south reaches its peak.
This has raised concern among political circles tracking the situation, amid fears that the pause could drag on, leaving Lebanon on its own in the absence of any external push to end the war, and opening the door for President Joseph Aoun to call for direct negotiations with Israel to proceed under the cover of a truce that would relieve pressure created by ongoing hostilities from both sides.
These circles note that ceasefire efforts remain stalled, colliding with Israel’s insistence on delivering a “decisive blow” to Hezbollah to eliminate its stockpile of heavy rockets. In parallel, they say, the group continues to confront Israel’s ground advance in the south to prevent it from securing deeper control over areas south of the Litani River, amid Israeli threats to destroy what remains of bridges linking the river’s southern and northern banks.
Rejection on both sides
Sources confirm there is no prospect of a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, which remains committed to its weapons and is now engaged in what it describes as an “existential battle.” Relinquishing its arms without guarantees, they say, would amount to voluntarily ending its political role.
The same position, the sources add, applies to Israel, backed by the US, which will not halt hostilities unless it eliminates Hezbollah’s weapons as part of ending the role of Iran-aligned actors in the region.
According to the sources, a ceasefire decision is not supported by either side, Hezbollah or Israel and is fully tied to the trajectory of the broader conflict involving Iran, the US, and Israel. This linkage has stalled Aoun’s call for direct negotiations in the absence of guarantees for a truce. Ending the war in the south, they stress, goes beyond the local arena and is directly connected to the wider confrontation on the Iranian front, making the two fronts inseparable.
The sources add that dialogue between Aoun and Hezbollah, for which Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri had helped prepare the ground, remains suspended, as decision-making lies not with the party’s political wing but with its military wing, with which there is no presidential channel. They say Aoun does not bear responsibility for the breakdown, which was triggered by Secretary-General Naim Qassem backing away from a pledge not to intervene militarily in support of Iran.
They argue there is no value in dialogue that will not produce results as long as authority rests with a military wing directly linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, even if its leadership seeks to justify this by citing the absence of guarantees. The sources reveal that the group has not received assurances regarding its political future; otherwise, it would not hand over its weapons “for free” to the state while Israel continues its occupation of the south and refuses to commit to the cessation-of-hostilities agreement implemented unilaterally more than a year and three months ago.
The same sources say that while the group’s leadership, represented by Qassem, supports Berri’s demand to implement the agreement brokered by France and the US and applied by Lebanon since November 27, 2024, it questions why Washington has stepped back from guarantees ensuring the agreement’s implementation through synchronized steps between Lebanon and Israel.
While the group avoids addressing Qassem’s reversal on supporting Iran, the sources say the issue has been settled between the allies and moved past, without dwelling on the stance of ministers aligned with Berri who backed cabinet decisions, in contrast to those aligned with the group who abstained, reflecting its insistence on avoiding a dispute with its only remaining ally.
Berri focuses on displaced
While Berri is currently focused on supporting efforts led by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s government, in cooperation with civil society and NGOs, to provide shelter and basic needs for displaced people, he is also urging them to comply with security measures to maintain stability and prevent tensions with host communities. He praised local support efforts and stressed that maintaining security and stability is a “red line” to safeguard civil peace.
Berri’s prioritization of accommodating displaced populations and preparing for further waves, driven by Israeli pressure through displacement and systematic destruction of homes, has prompted questions among observers as to why he has not reactivated his political role.
These circles say the answer ultimately lies with him, noting he was the first to welcome a ceasefire and reject negotiations under pressure. This explains his demand for guarantees on the implementation of any agreement, for which the US bears responsibility, to prevent Lebanon from being drawn into new negotiations without clarity on venue, timing, or agenda, especially when an agreement brokered by France and the US already exists and is overseen by the “mechanism committee” tasked with implementing Resolution 1701, but remains dependent on US follow-through.
The sources also pointed to remarks by US Ambassador to Beirut Michael Issa following a meeting with Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rahi, welcoming Aoun’s call for direct negotiations with Israel. They said he effectively acknowledged the initiative but, instead of facilitating it, undermined it by implying it would take place under fire, rather than through US intervention to halt the war and create conditions for negotiations under US sponsorship and guarantees.
