Damascus, Syria - Failed peace talks between the US and Iran in Islamabad and continued Israeli violations in Lebanon have left the Middle East’s fragile ceasefire teetering on the edge in recent days.
Last Wednesday, Israel launched over 100 airstrikes across Lebanon, which killed more than 300 in the space of 10 minutes, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. Beirut’s skyline was filled with tall black columns of smoke as buildings were hit across the capital.
The attack came despite last week’s two-week ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran that reportedly stipulated “the full cessation of war on all fronts”.
Following the killings and under Iranian threats to abandon peace talks, Israel agreed, under US pressure, to scale down its attacks on Lebanon and commit to direct negotiations with the Lebanese government.
However, Israel is still fighting in southern Lebanon in violation of the ceasefire, with many of the clashes in recent days centred around the town of Bint Jbeil .
On Sunday, Israel killed an infant during the funeral of her father, who had been killed in a previous strike on their home in the village of Qana .
With peace talks in Pakistan seemingly failing, the outcome of Israeli-Lebanese negotiations uncertain, and a growing prospect for internal conflict between Hezbollah and the government, there is a grave risk of more violence emerging in Lebanon. Israeli-Lebanese negotiations Israel was effectively sidelined during US negotiations with Iran, and according to Israeli media, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had actively tried to convince President Trump not to agree to it during a phone call last week.
On Tuesday, however, the US hosted Israeli and Lebanese envoys for the first direct talks in decades to discuss a framework for peace, though no progress was reported. None of the participants mentioned concrete details about any new planned rounds of discussions.
Israel entered the talks having ruled out a ceasefire in Lebanon . According to David Wood, International Crisis Group’s senior researcher for Lebanon, this insistence appears to be an “attempt to sever its war in Lebanon from the wider confrontation with Iran”.
“Israel is essentially trying to impose a military reality on Lebanon separate from its dealings with Iran,” he told The New Arab .
Ultimately, Israel’s willingness to enter negotiations, which only came due to US pressure, “doesn’t amount to much of a concession at all,” according to Wood, because they have not agreed to halt the conflict.
“Either [negotiations] result in them achieving their goals, or the negotiations fail, which they have already guarded against by negotiating under fire.”
Netanyahu is demanding “the dismantling of Hezbollah’s weapons, and a real peace agreement that will last for generations”. However, the Lebanese government’s ability to deliver either is doubtful.
Firstly, Israel has long demanded the disarmament of Hezbollah , but the Lebanese army is ill-suited to carry out the demand due to its lack of military capability in comparison to the well-armed Shia group, and also the fact that large numbers of its own rank-and-file are drawn from Lebanon’s Shia community.
As such, any move against Hezbollah risks fragmenting the army internally .
Secondly, whilst the Lebanese government has the capacity to agree to a peace deal with Israel on paper, in reality, “the government doesn't have the capacity to force through a deal due to Hezbollah’s opposition,” explains Wood, “but also the existence of other political groups in Lebanon that oppose the idea of normalisation even if they want a ceasefire”. Hezbollah has publicly disavowed any state-level negotiations with Israel, with the group’s leader, Naim Qassem, on Monday calling talks “futile,” saying they are a trick to pressure Hezbollah into giving up its weapons. The Lebanese government has found itself between a rock and a hard place. “Their primary aim is simply to get Israel to stop attacking Lebanon, " explains Wood.
“Finding a new security arrangement with Israel that can bring to an end these hostilities is something the majority of Lebanese people support,” he added.
“Despite this, Israel’s demand [for a new security arrangement] of disarming Hezbollah and signing a peace agreement is far more controversial with many sections of Lebanese society.”
Mohammed Al-Basha, founder of Basha Report, a US Risk Advisory Firm, says the main issue is the distance between different visions. “The Lebanese state is trying to act like a sovereign actor, but Hezbollah still operates within a regional framework tied to Iran,” he told TNA . “The divide is growing between the state and Hezbollah’s positions. Hezbollah doesn’t want Lebanon separated from Iran’s regional strategy, [although] it may accept limited arrangements that reduce pressure on Lebanon without surrendering its core position.”
This growing divide means that there is now a “real risk” of internal strain between the government and Hezbollah, although Al-Basha clarifies that internal strain doesn’t necessarily mean full civil war. The possibility of a long war in Lebanon Whilst there is a possibility that talks result in “a temporary arrangement that reduces violence in Lebanon,” argues Al-Basha. “Escalation is likely if talks fail, as the current pattern [of fighting] would probably deepen and intensify.”
This would bring further Israeli ground operations in the south, heavier airstrikes across the country, and continued rocket and drone attacks from Hezbollah.
Israel is publicly pushing for the full disarmament of Hezbollah and a long-term political settlement in Lebanon to ensure the safety of its northern residents. Israeli officials have signalled an intention to stay in Lebanon for the foreseeable future, with Defence Minister Israel Katz stating that the Israeli army intends to “occupy south Lebanon indefinitely”.
However, with Hezbollah launching most of its missile attacks from north of the Litani river, it is unlikely that a long occupation of the south would even achieve Israel’s primary goal of stopping attacks, and perhaps would only further galvanise Hezbollah’s call for resistance.
Senior Israeli army officials have acknowledged that stopping Hezbollah’s ability to launch missiles would likely require a full occupation of Lebanon, which appears to be politically untenable and, with the army overstretched, militarily unachievable .
As a result, “in practice its goals appear more limited,” explains Al-Basha. “Push Hezbollah away from the border, degrade its capabilities and create a security zone in the south.”
This limited capacity to achieve its military goals helps to explain why Israel is seeking to engage on a diplomatic track simultaneously with Lebanon. They are essentially seeking to shift the responsibility for Hezbollah’s disarmament from the Israeli military onto the Lebanese state.
This leaves Lebanon stuck between Israel’s unachievable military and political objectives, the Lebanese government’s inability to act, and Hezbollah’s refusal to lay down its weapons unless as part of a broader settlement that includes Iran.
Perhaps the only way out of the Lebanese quagmire is a broader regional peace deal between Iran and the US, because according to Wood, “Israeli actions in Lebanon are highly unlikely to stop without real US pressure”.
Yet, with the apparent failure of talks in Pakistan, the US and Israel's continued maximalist demands, and Iran and Hezbollah’s sense that, despite the losses, they are somehow winning this war, it seems like the possibility of a broader regional settlement that includes Lebanon is as far away as ever. For the people of Lebanon, there seems to be little respite from Israeli bombardment, and little hope that things will return to normal anytime soon. Cian Ward is a journalist based in Damascus, covering conflict, migration, and humanitarian issues Follow him on X: @CP__Ward Edited by Charlie Hoyle