When the latest ceasefire in Lebanon was announced in mid-April, some hoped that - unlike all others before it - this time it might finally lead to peace.
After all, the first direct talks in decades were to be held between Lebanese and Israeli officials with the aim of disarming Hezbollah and ending a renewed war that has devastated much of the country .
“It seemed that we finally had a seat at the table, so perhaps we were no longer the meal,” wrote Lebanese author Rana Hanna.
But within hours, Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah resumed trading attacks, and any hopes of a swift truce evaporated. Over a month later, the ceasefire exists in name only , and Lebanon’s “seat at the table” looks increasingly shaky.
Overshadowed by the much weightier talks between the US and Iran , Lebanon’s aspirations for stability and security risk being sidelined, especially amid an expanded Israeli military onslaught.
“The main risk is that Lebanon becomes a secondary consideration in a broader regional bargain, with arrangements reinforcing Hezbollah’s role as a key actor in decisions of war and peace while sidelining the Lebanese state,” Dr Imad Salamey, an international relations professor at the Lebanese American University, told The New Arab .
The Lebanese government will attempt to set its own terms in ongoing negotiations with Israel, with the fourth round of US-hosted talks held this week. Namely, it will seek to secure a permanent ceasefire and gain international support to address the humanitarian crisis gripping the country.
However, experts say the political and security reality in Lebanon will be shaped largely by the interests of Israel, the US, and Iran.
Israel, for its part, will want to continue its war with Hezbollah, which has so far killed 3,433 people in Lebanon since early March, including paramedics, women, and children.
The US and Iran, seemingly on the verge of a deal, will be embroiled primarily in the issues of reopening the Strait of Hormuz and negotiating over Iran’s nuclear programme.
“Lebanon is today essentially a proxy war in a much wider regional conflict between Israel and America on the one side and Iran on the other,” Michael Young, a senior editor at the Carnegie Endowment’s Middle East Center in Beirut, told The New Arab .
“We do not have the capacity to put anything on the table. We're very weak. We're very vulnerable. We're very divided,” Young added.
So far, it appears that any US deal with Iran will do little to assuage either of Lebanon’s key security challenges: neither reining in Israel’s attacks and expanding invasion , nor providing meaningful support to the Lebanese government in disarming Hezbollah.
“What many people call for, but certainly doesn't seem to be happening, is that the US would insist, as it proposed early in this war, that Iran has to stop its support of its proxies, including Hezbollah,” Paul Salem, non-resident Senior Associate at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, told The New Arab. He added: “The likely scenarios, with many variations, are that either with or without a ceasefire, Iran remains committed to Hezbollah, and Hezbollah remains committed to Iran. And, you know, the Lebanese government does not get any benefit from that.”
Lebanon may face a similar situation to that of the ceasefire in 2024, in which Israel was effectively given the green light to continue striking at will, except this time with an expanded and more destructive occupation of southern Lebanon.
Many in Israel fear that a deal between the US and Iran might force it to cease its attacks on Lebanon. To that end, it is seeking to decouple the two conflicts largely by ramping up its attacks on Lebanon while gaining US support.
Israel’s military has recently intensified its bombing of southern Lebanon, issued forced displacement orders to hundreds of thousands of people, and crossed the Litani River in an advancing ground invasion.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah continues to fire drones and rockets towards northern Israel and is inflicting casualties on Israeli troops in Lebanon.
In a significant escalation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week ordered renewed attacks on Dahieh, Beirut’s southern suburbs, which have remained relatively unscathed since the mid-April ceasefire.
A flurry of official statements ensued, none of which seemed to pay any heed to the Lebanese government. Iran said it would suspend peace talks with the US, which led President Donald Trump to claim that Israel and Hezbollah had agreed to a proposal that would stop Israel from attacking Beirut.
But later, Netanyahu appeared to contradict this, warning that Israel would strike Beirut if Hezbollah did not stop its attacks.
Salamey said Israel’s continued attacks during US-Iran negotiations suggested it was acting as a “spoiler, by ensuring that any US-Iran understanding does not overlook its security concerns”.
“At the same time, Israel appears to be racing to reshape realities on the ground before any imposed ceasefire or negotiated settlement takes effect, seeking to maximise its military and political advantages,” Salamey said.
Iranian officials have repeatedly stressed that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) it is negotiating to end the war with the US must “end the war on all fronts, including Lebanon”.
However, it remains unclear whether the conflict in Lebanon will be addressed in the MoU, and whether Iran will remain committed to achieving a ceasefire in Lebanon as the stakes increase.
“While they would like a ceasefire, they're not going to jeopardise the whole potential agreement, which would enable them to resume their oil exports and to access frozen funds, just for Hezbollah,” Salem said.
Meanwhile, the Lebanese government will once again be caught in an impossible position as it is expected to disarm Hezbollah - a group considered to be far stronger than the Lebanese army - which could risk tearing the country apart along sectarian lines.
“The Lebanese army doesn't have the capacity to disarm Hezbollah because it would involve entering into a confrontation with an entire sectarian community, the Shia community,” Young said.
He added, “On the one hand, they [the Shia community] have the madness of the Iranians to deal with. On the other hand, they have the genocidal tendencies of the Israelis to deal with. And so, they and Lebanon as a whole are caught in the middle.”
For many Lebanese Shia, who make up the bulk of Hezbollah’s support base, the negotiations with Israel feel like a betrayal.
But while the talks are fraught with domestic tensions – and are dwarfed by the broader US-Iran negotiations – Salamey argues that they remain “highly significant”.
“They [the talks] help build military and political channels between the two countries, reduce the risk of future conflict … and serve as an early framework for a future political order in which the Lebanese state plays a greater role in decisions of war and peace.” Alex Martin Astley is a freelance journalist based in Beirut, covering conflict, foreign policy, and social justice issues Follow him on X: @AlexMAstley Edited by Charlie Hoyle