During his visit to the Saudi capital, Riyadh, on June 15, Qatar’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Al-Khulaifi, met with Prince Yazid bin Mohammed bin Farhan, adviser to the Saudi foreign minister on Lebanese affairs. The two sides discussed “the latest developments in Lebanon and the joint coordination efforts between the two countries regarding the Lebanese situation.”
The Saudi-Qatari meeting came as the culmination of joint coordination between the two neighboring states, both of which have been actively working to reduce tensions in the region. There have been ongoing contacts between the foreign ministers of the two countries, particularly as Doha was a principal party to the mediation between the US and Iran, a mediation initiated by Pakistan and backed openly by Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Council of Ministers welcomed “the reaching of an agreement between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran to end military operations and begin detailed negotiations aimed at reaching a permanent agreement,” while commending “the mediation efforts undertaken by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the State of Qatar in this regard.”
The US-Iranian “framework of understanding” is expected to include a comprehensive ceasefire across the various fronts, including Lebanon, despite explicit Israeli resistance and opposition to this provision. The coming days will test the extent to which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu adheres to the choices of US President Donald Trump, or whether operations will continue in southern Lebanon. They will also determine whether there will be a clear plan for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Lebanese territories they occupy, paving the way for the Lebanese army to extend its control, followed by the return of the displaced and the start of reconstruction, in parallel with confining weapons to the hands of the state and launching a political-economic process that restores the strength and effectiveness of state institutions.
The importance of the Bin Farhan–Al-Khulaifi meeting lies in the sensitivity of the Lebanese case and Lebanon’s need for an effective Arab safety net capable of removing it from its role as an arena for the conflict of regional axes and the exchange of military messages between Iran and Israel.
Lebanon, in its current situation, suffers from both Israeli occupation and Iranian influence. Tel Aviv seeks to maintain a buffer zone that protects it from Hezbollah’s military operations, while Tehran seeks to extract a price for its ally in Lebanon at the negotiating table with Washington.
Saudi Arabia has, on more than one occasion, sought to consolidate an independent Lebanese track that places internal decision-making exclusively in the hands of state institutions. Despite its full awareness of the complexity of the security situation, Riyadh is working to untangle these knots by strengthening state institutions and the Lebanese army, urging Washington to pressure Netanyahu to halt hostilities against Lebanon, and supporting patient diplomacy aimed at establishing a lasting ceasefire along the Lebanese-Israeli border.
This month in Beirut, Prince Yazid bin Farhan met with President Joseph Aoun, discussing Lebanese and regional developments, recent developments in the region, and the course of the Lebanese-American-Israeli negotiations currently under way in Washington.
During the meeting, Aoun asked the Saudi adviser to convey “Lebanon’s thanks to King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s decision to resume importing Lebanese agricultural and industrial products,” considering the move to “reflect the Kingdom’s enduring support for Lebanon under all circumstances.”
Prince Yazid bin Farhan’s regular visits to Lebanon, his meetings with the heads of the three branches of government, and his consultations with influential political figures are all manifestations of this Saudi policy, which seeks to form a protective shield around the Lebanese state and end the state of war with Israel in a manner that safeguards the interests of the Lebanese people and paves the way for genuine change and lasting peace, without granting Israel undeserved privileges or relinquishing any occupied Lebanese territory, and without, at the same time, allowing Iran to secure any internal influence through Hezbollah.
These Saudi efforts are supported by the heads of Lebanon’s three branches of government and are also appreciated by the Lebanese people, including a very broad segment of Hezbollah’s popular base. Exhausted by wars, this constituency seeks an escape from instability and has grown weary of being used by Iran as a bargaining chip in external negotiations. This sentiment can be discerned in a number of positions expressed by this social environment and even by some media figures close to it. Although they do not openly criticize Hezbollah or the IRGC at this time because of the circumstances created by Israeli military operations, they express such views in private circles, on some social media platforms, and in internal discussions. Indeed, they seek to rally broader support for this position, convinced that the framework uniting all Lebanese should be the state, not the sect.
An observer of Saudi diplomacy will find it focused on reinforcing the authority of the Lebanese state, not on granting Hezbollah or Iran the right to manage the Lebanese situation on their own. Qatar, for its part, is operating within the broader framework of regional mediation, pushing to transform the “framework of understanding” into a credible negotiating track. Official Lebanon, meanwhile, wants to benefit from de-escalation without becoming hostage to the conditions of others. Israel seeks to reduce the military burden on its forces without sacrificing freedom of movement in Lebanese airspace and territory. Hezbollah, meanwhile, wants any ceasefire to be linked to an Israeli withdrawal and future guarantees secured through the Iranian-American negotiations.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the ceasefire announcement faces a number of challenges that will determine its future. Is it merely a temporary halt to military operations, or the beginning of a new security arrangement that returns the Lebanese army to the border, ends the Israeli occupation, and places weapons within the framework of state authority?
