Despite repeated statements by President Trump predicting an imminent agreement to end the conflict with Iran, developments over the past week offered little indication of a genuine breakthrough. Instead, regional tensions remained high amid what political observers describe as determined Israeli efforts to undermine any potential deal between Washington and Tehran through increasing military confrontation on the Lebanese front.

At the same time, Iran’s insistence that Lebanon be included in any agreement ending hostilities with the United States has complicated Israeli calculations. The position came after Israeli threats to target Beirut’s southern suburbs in an effort to alter the military balance with Hezbollah. Israel, backed by the Trump administration, moved quickly to capitalize on the current Lebanese government’s alignment with U.S. demands regarding ceasefire conditions, while Iran continued to insist on a complete Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

Against that backdrop, the so-called “Washington Declaration” outlining a ceasefire framework between Lebanon and Israel emerged as the latest expression of a political approach adopted by Lebanon’s government in recent months. The strategy is based on the premise that regional and international power dynamics require political concessions under the banner of realism.

Hezbollah swiftly rejected that approach. Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem described the agreement as a “grave mistake,” rejecting both its substance and the political logic behind it. He accused its architects of attempting to grant Israel through diplomacy what it had failed to achieve through aggression and military force.

Israeli soldiers are terrorized by Hezbollah’s $500 FPV drones in Southern Lebanon.

Lebanon’s internal divide deepens

As the government of President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam advances a highly sensitive and ambiguous political course, Lebanon finds itself facing growing internal divisions over the country’s strategic choices and concessions.

The fourth round of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel in Washington highlighted those deep divisions. President Aoun spoke publicly about implementation mechanisms, military deployment arrangements and understandings reached during the talks, warning that the Washington framework may represent Lebanon’s last opportunity and that all parties would bear responsibility for the consequences if it failed.

Meanwhile, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri engaged in extensive consultations both domestically and internationally amid pressure from multiple sides to support the Washington initiative. Political sources close to Berri indicate that he is primarily focused on the possibility of a broader U.S.-Iran agreement that would include Lebanon and compel Israel to halt military operations without additional dangerous concessions.

On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government portrayed the Washington Declaration as a political victory. Defense Minister Israel Katz argued that the arrangement would allow Israeli forces to remain in all current positions, including strategic sites such as Beaufort Castle, with the approval of the Lebanese government while awaiting Hezbollah’s withdrawal from south of the Litani River and disarmament.

Netanyahu subsequently warned that Lebanon could face the same fate as Gaza if the agreement is rejected.

Escalating regional pressures

Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir said the Israeli army remains committed to creating a long-term security reality for northern Israeli settlements.

Iran, however, continued to link stability in the region to a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps stated that no lasting calm would be possible without such a withdrawal and emphasized that its primary condition for accepting any ceasefire arrangement is a halt to hostilities on all fronts including Lebanon.

Reports circulating in regional media suggest that Israel had considered launching a sustained air campaign against Beirut’s southern suburbs in coordination and approval of the Trump administration. The plan reportedly envisioned several days of heavy aerial  bombardments followed by U.S. intervention to impose a ceasefire under a formula described as “the Beirut suburbs in exchange for the Israeli northern settlements.”

According to these accounts, the objective was to provide Israel with greater operational freedom in southern Lebanon while limiting Hezbollah’s ability to retaliate against Israeli territory.

Iran’s response reportedly altered those calculations. Beyond issuing warnings, Tehran allegedly conveyed its readiness to respond directly to any Israeli attack on Beirut’s southern suburbs while also freezing portions of its diplomatic track with Washington. Iranian officials further suggested that escalation could threaten key maritime routes in the Bab el-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz, two of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints and expand the scope of the conflict.

The result, according to several analysts, was a shift away from Israel’s preferred equation toward a new framework summarized as “calm in exchange for calm.”

Fighting continues despite diplomatic efforts

On the ground, hostilities continued despite the ceasefire arrangements negotiated between Lebanon and Israel with U.S. mediation.

Israeli military aggression continued against Lebanese towns and villages, while Hezbollah responded with a series of military actions that Israeli media described as creating significant security challenges.

The Israeli military acknowledged that 63 officers and soldiers were wounded during four days of fighting in southern Lebanon.

According to reports cited by the New York Times, Hezbollah’s increasing use of fiber-optic-guided drones has exposed vulnerabilities within Israel’s defensive systems and raised concerns among military and political leaders. The drones reportedly have been used in direct attacks against armored personnel carriers, tanks and air-defense systems.

The debate inside Israel over how to proceed has intensified as criticism of Netanyahu’s government grows.

Ofer Shelah, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv, argued that political leaders favor continuing the war because the alternative would be acknowledging that many promises made since October 2023 have not been fulfilled.

“The military establishment has been in shock since October 7 and has largely abandoned its role in shaping the campaign,” Shelah said. “It continues to speak about moving forward, but where exactly are we going? Are we really heading to Beirut? We are living under the illusion of absolute security. There is no such thing as absolute security in the Middle East.”

Trump’s intervention

While direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations were underway in Washington, broader discussions involving Lebanon were reportedly taking place through indirect U.S.-Iran talks facilitated by regional mediators in Islamabad and Doha.

The developments underscored the extent to which Lebanon’s future remains tied to the broader relationship between Tehran and Washington.

Throughout the week, President Trump repeatedly referenced Lebanon while discussing regional diplomacy. He stated on Truth Social that his administration had established communication with Hezbollah and suggested separating the issue of the Strait of Hormuz from developments in southern Lebanon.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rejected that allegation, insisting that Tehran would not accept any agreement with Washington unless it included an end to the war in Lebanon.

Trump also claimed that Hezbollah had indicated it would refrain from attacking Israel if Israel avoided similar actions. At the same time, he acknowledged that maintaining a ceasefire in Lebanon is far more complicated than ceasefire arrangements elsewhere.

According to reports published by Axios citing U.S. officials, Trump sharply criticized Netanyahu during a tense phone conversation over Israeli military actions in Lebanon. The report described Trump as warning that escalation threatened sensitive negotiations with Iran and could undermine broader diplomatic efforts.

For his part, Araghchi maintained that the Lebanese and Iranian fronts remain interconnected.

“Either the war ends in both Iran and Lebanon, or it ends in neither place,” he said, warning that any attack on Beirut would carry serious consequences and could reignite a wider conflict.

Iranian military adviser Mohsen Rezaei delivered a similar message, stating that Tehran was fully prepared for escalation and warning Israel against any military action targeting Beirut’s southern suburbs.

Uncertain outlook

As negotiations continue, neither diplomacy nor military pressure has produced a decisive outcome.

Trump has repeatedly stated that the United States will prevail either through a negotiated agreement or through military means and has emphasized reopening the Strait of Hormuz as a key objective of any future arrangement with Iran.

At the same time, growing divisions within Washington have emerged over the administration’s handling of the war on Iran. Members of Congress have pushed for greater oversight of military actions involving Iran, reflecting broader concerns about the risks of an expanded regional war.

For now, Lebanon remains at the center of a complex geopolitical struggle involving the United States, Iran, Israel and Hezbollah, with both diplomatic and military developments continuing to shape the region’s uncertain future.