With negotiations continuing on enforcing a ceasefire in Lebanon, neither Israel nor Hizbullah have shown a willingness to back down, writes Rabha Seif Allam

Developments in Lebanon this week suggest that enforcing the ceasefire agreement reached last week, reportedly through the personal intervention of US President Donald Trump, remains elusive.

Analyses vary in how they characterise the current situation, with some describing it as a renewed phase in the full-scale war between Iran and Hizbullah, on the one side, and Israel and the US on the other. Others see it as a test of the new “rules of engagement” through a trial by fire before a new ceasefire agreement is reached, perhaps leading to a comprehensive settlement.

Both sides are determined to project their narratives on the ground while sending lethal messages in the form of missile strikes aimed at ensuring their deterrence option prevails.

As the situation stood until last weekend, the Israeli formula was “we strike [the district of] Dahiyeh in Beirut in response to Hizbullah strikes against settlements in northern Israel.”

Hizbullah, backed by Iran, countered with “Israeli strikes on the Beirut suburb will be met with strikes against Tel Aviv and not just the northern settlements.” It sought to deny that it had changed in line with the current balance of power, which favours Israel.

On 7 June, in response to Hizbullah’s refusal to stop targeting northern Israeli settlements in the absence of an Israeli ceasefire, Israel carried out a strike on Dahiyeh that it had deferred from the previous week, claiming that it was in response to Hizbullah missile fire towards northern Israel.

It targeted two apartments in the Al-Ghadir area of Dahiyeh, claiming they housed a Hizbullah command centre. Two people died and 11 were injured in the attack. Israel did not disclose the identity of the individuals it targeted, stating that the objective was to send a message by destroying the site itself, rather than assassinating specified individuals.

The same evening Iran retaliated by firing missiles towards Tel Aviv and central Israel. The following morning, Israel responded with a limited strike on targets in western and central Iran, defying Trump’s attempt to prevent such a response.

Trump had publicly expressed his hope that Netanyahu would not retaliate for fear of jeopardising an imminent deal with Iran.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reiterated its position that either there is a comprehensive ceasefire across all fronts or there is no ceasefire at all and that an Israeli breach of the ceasefire on one front – Lebanon – would collapse the ceasefire on all fronts.

According to a White House source, Trump was convinced that Iran was not prepared to restart a full-scale war. Iranian officials, however, have refused to resume negotiations. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and other Iranian officials accused the US of greenlighting the Israeli strike on Dahiyeh, which violated the terms of the truce between the US and Iran.

On 8 June, the Ansarullah (Houthi) Movement in Yemen also renewed its missile fire on Israel, targeting areas in the Negev near Dimona, and again began disrupting Israel-linked shipping in the Red Sea.

By the end of the day, the ceasefire between Iran and Israel was restored. The Central Military Operations Room stated that it had suspended operations after retaliating against Israel’s attack on Dahiyeh. At the same time, Netanyahu, in a televised address, said that he had informed Trump that Israel would halt its operations against Iran while retaining “Israel’s right to self-defence”. 

Earlier that day, US ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, held separate meetings with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to lay out Washington’s conception of its mediating role in the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations. The meeting with Berri was also intended to relay Washington’s messages to Hizbullah.

Issa reassured the officials that Washington remained committed to securing the ceasefire. He explained that the proposed “pilot zones” in the draft ceasefire agreement would facilitate the gradual return of displaced residents to southern Lebanon and the resumption of normal life. He stressed that operations in these zones would entail the full elimination of weapons outside state control. He also told the officials that there were no new developments on the ground to warrant revising the current ceasefire formula: Beirut’s southern suburbs would be spared Israeli strikes as long as Hezbollah did not fire into northern Israel. Southern Lebanon would eventually be subject to the security arrangements that emerge from the US-sponsored Lebanese-Israeli negotiations.

In an interview with CNN on Monday, Lebanese President Aoun said that Lebanon had “no other choice” but to continue negotiations with Israel under US auspices and that it was counting on Washington to make a breakthrough. He also stressed the need to avoid a military confrontation between the Lebanese Armed Forces and Hizbullah. Rather than relying on force, the necessary political, social, and economic conditions had to be put into place to eliminate the perceived need for weapons outside state authority. Once those conditions are in place, if Hizbullah still refuses to reach a negotiated agreement with the state over disarmament, it will have to answer to its own base and to the Lebanese public as a whole.

 This marks a significant development, as the Houthis had been conspicuous by their absence since the fighting between Lebanon and Israel resumed in early March.

Prior to Sunday’s escalation, direct talks between the Lebanese government and Israel had moved into their fourth round. Meeting in Washington on 2-3 June, the negotiating delegations sought to produce a joint statement that would pave the way for a preliminary ceasefire and, potentially, a comprehensive peace between the two countries.

By the end of the session, however, there remained several contentious points in the draft text. Then the Israeli strikes against Beirut on 7 June cast serious doubt on efforts to finalise the statement.

According to a joint statement released by the US State Department on the outcome of the trilateral meeting of 2-3 June, Tel Aviv and Beirut agreed to create “pilot zones” in which the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would assume exclusive control of the territory “to the exclusion of all non-state actors”.

However, the statement made no mention of an implementation plan or a timetable for Israeli withdrawal before or in tandem with the LAF’s deployment in these zones. This is a highly sensitive point, given the risks of both the Lebanese and Israeli militaries being present in the same area simultaneously.

Israel has previously carried out direct strikes against LAF targets. Most recently, it attacked a Lebanese army vehicle, killing three Lebanese soldiers including a general and injuring several others.

The crucial question is who will persuade Hizbullah, the unnamed “non-state actor”, to withdraw given the rift between the Lebanese government and the Lebanese resistance movement.

Hizbullah Secretary General Naim Qassem rejected the joint statement, describing it as “a roadmap for the extermination of part of the Lebanese people and the enslavement of the other part”.

“As long as the occupation exists, the resistance will continue,” he said.

In contrast, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun described the statement as a last opportunity to reach a low-cost solution and a permanent end to the war on Lebanon. As this indicates, Hizbullah’s and the Lebanese government’s positions are so far apart as to be practically unbridgeable. Not only does this weaken the government’s negotiating position in Washington, but it also reflects a looming threat to Lebanon’s internal stability.

The joint statement “reaffirmed that the future of the relationship between Israel and Lebanon must be decided by the two sovereign governments. They reject any attempt, by any state or non-state actor, to hold Lebanon’s future hostage.” The aim is to prevent Iran from using its influence to undermine the prospects of a Lebanese-Israeli peace.

The statement also “reaffirmed that any agreement to cease hostilities must be reached directly between the two governments, brokered by the United States, and not through any separate track”.

This reinforces the idea that Lebanon’s fate is to be determined by negotiators in Washington rather than through the US-Iran track in Islamabad. It simultaneously sidelines potential efforts by other actors, such as France or influential Arab powers, whose interventions could shift the negotiating balance in Lebanon’s favour.

At the end of the statement, each side underscored its main priority.

Israel “reaffirmed that its security and respect for its territorial integrity can only be achieved through the disarmament of Hizbullah and the dismantlement of its infrastructure throughout Lebanon”.

Lebanon stressed “the necessity for mutual respect of internationally recognised borders and the urgent need for full implementation of the cessation of hostilities, underscoring the principles of territorial integrity and full state sovereignty”.

The two sides agreed to meet again on 22 June.

However, before then, the regional landscape may shift again dramatically. Iran’s new wave of strikes on Israel and the Houthis’ return to military operations and maritime pressure signals a willingness to escalate if need be.

Hizbullah continues its attacks on Israeli forces advancing in the south, especially near Nabatieh. Israel remains determined to impose its conditions as it continues to issue evacuation warnings north of the Litani River, signalling a further escalation in its ground offensive with the aim of occupying more than 20 per cent of Lebanese territory.