When the United States and Iran published the initial Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) meant to halt the months-long war initiated by the U.S. and Israel, its first article called for a “permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.” It was a term acceptable to the Trump Administration, but not its co-belligerents in the conflict. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz summed up this dynamic on June 24, proclaiming that “we are not retreating” from Lebanon, “even if there is an American demand.” Such statements, while geared toward Israel’s hawkish voting base months before its parliamentary elections, reflect an unfortunate reality: Israel’s political leadership believes it can skirt the demands of its patron, even when its decisions go against U.S. interests. The reality, however, is that Washington can and should materially pressure Tel Aviv to end its military operations in Lebanon, especially if it wants already floundering talks with Iran to succeed.
That agreement explicitly demands a cessation of hostilities across the Middle East between the United States and Israel, on the one hand, and Iran and its allies, on the other. Indeed, it constitutes the first point of the framework for talks between Washington and Tehran, highlighting the importance they place on this component and their understanding of its potential to derail negotiations. The Islamic Republic risked collapsing talks with the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump to connect Lebanon and the region to the MOU, whereas the White House seems to understand that it cannot seriously reject this stance.
Israel, however, has other plans. Since the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, Israel’s genocide of the Gaza Strip, and its subsequent assault on most of its neighbors, it has worked to establish buffer zones of control beyond its borders in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. It claims to view Lebanese Hezbollah as an existential threat, which it views as justifying its forced displacement of at least 1.3 million Lebanese from the country’s south, razing of cities along the disputed border, destruction of civilian infrastructure, poisoning of the land, and refusal to allow any return to the area in what would amount to the war crime of unlawful transfer and ethnic cleansing.
As a result, both Israel and Hezbollah have continued to trade strikes, albeit to a lesser degree. The former has conducted a significant majority of those strikes, with Hezbollah almost entirely responding to them. Both, in turn, accuse each other of violating the ceasefire. For Israel, these developments are the goal, as it hopes to spoil the MOU and renew full, direct hostilities with Iran and continue its unchecked aggression against Lebanon and its neighbors. For a country predicated on land seizure, occupation, and apartheid, it should not be surprising that its only solution to real or perceived security threats was always indefinite and creeping land seizure and occupation.
Read at Center for International Policy
Author
More on Middle East
