A deal between Lebanon and Israel, initially presented as a path to peace, is instead intensifying long-standing divisions within Lebanon and fueling concerns over political paralysis or a return to civil conflict.
The U.S.-brokered agreement outlines an Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon alongside a future peace accord between the two nations, which technically remain at war nearly 80 years after Israel's founding. However, the pact stipulates that full Israeli withdrawal will only occur following the disarmament of Hezbollah, a move that has angered the Iran-backed militant group.
The Western-backed government in Lebanon and Hezbollah have exchanged sharp remarks, while supporters of the militant group have blocked major roadways in protest. One Hezbollah lawmaker warned that the country could descend into civil war if the government attempts to enforce disarmament on the group.
These tensions evoke memories of Lebanon's destructive 1975–1990 civil war and recent confrontations between Hezbollah gunmen and pro-government fighters in 2008. Furthermore, they raise significant questions about the viability of the U.S.-brokered deal itself.
A resumption of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran would further complicate the deal's prospects and increase the risk of renewed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
The deal is scheduled to be a key topic when Lebanese President Joseph Aoun visits the White House on July 21.
### The Deal Rooted in US War Against Iran
Lebanon’s political structure has been divided for more than two decades between a Western-backed coalition and one supported by Iran and led by Hezbollah. Both factions view the outcome of this new agreement as existential.
The most recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah began in March, triggered by a joint U.S.-Israel operation against Iran days earlier.
Hezbollah entered the conflict without government approval and has sought to tie the cessation of its war with Israel to the results of broader U.S.-Iran discussions. The Lebanese government, aiming to limit Iranian influence, intended to keep these two tracks separate and negotiate a ceasefire directly with Israel.
### How the Lebanon-Israel Deal Shifted Dynamics
The pro-Hezbollah faction celebrated when the Iran-U.S. ceasefire explicitly called for an end to the war in Lebanon. This led to a truce that significantly reduced fighting intensity between Israel and Hezbollah. Nevertheless, Israeli forces continue to occupy large sections of southern Lebanon, and hundreds of thousands remain displaced from villages and city areas that have been nearly completely destroyed.
The connection to the U.S.-Iran ceasefire was widely perceived as strengthening Hezbollah's position and solidifying Iran’s influence over Lebanon.
However, days later, the situation reversed when Israel and Lebanon announced their June 26 "framework agreement" in Washington. That deal made Israeli troop withdrawal contingent upon the disarmament of Hezbollah across the country.
### Lebanese Rivals Clash Over the Agreement
Lebanese government officials have praised the deal as a step toward liberating occupied southern areas and enabling displaced persons to return home.
But because Israel has provided no timeline for its withdrawal, Hezbollah and its supporters accuse the government of consenting to an indefinite Israeli occupation.
Hezbollah supporters protested by blocking roads in Beirut. Some burned banners displaying the slogan “Lebanon First,” which was interpreted as a jab at the Iran-backed group. The group's leader, Naim Kassem, called the deal a "humiliation" and stated Hezbollah would not adhere to it.
Hassan Fadlallah, an influential Hezbollah legislator, escalated the criticism by asserting that the government “will not be able to enforce the agreement signed in Washington unless they go, with American support, to civil war.”
This rhetoric recalled events from May 2008, when the government attempted to dismantle Hezbollah’s telecommunications network. The group responded by deploying gunmen into the streets and engaging in intense clashes with pro-government fighters in Beirut and elsewhere. The government was ultimately forced to revoke its decision.
Hezbollah is now demanding that the government repeal its March 2 decision classifying Hezbollah's military and security activities as illegal.
Lebanon’s prime minister, Nawaf Salam, stated that the agreement with Israel would restore the state’s sovereignty over the entire country and has countered Hezbollah’s rhetoric.
“I am not looking for a confrontation with Hezbollah but neither myself nor anyone in the government will accept to be blackmailed by Hezbollah,” Salam recently told LBC TV station.
### The Deal Remains Stalled
Currently, there are no indications that verbal threats will escalate into violence—largely because the deal is at an impasse.
Israel and Lebanon have agreed to establish two "pilot zones" where the Israeli military would transfer control to the Lebanese army after clearing any Hezbollah presence from those areas.
Salam indicated that implementation could commence soon. However, on the ground, progress has been minimal.
“There is no schedule for the withdrawal or anything else,” stated a Lebanese military official who spoke anonymously due to lack of public authorization. He added that the army had received no information regarding when or how the Israeli withdrawal would proceed.
The initial pilot zones mentioned by Lebanese and Israeli officials include the towns of Froun, Ghandouriyeh, and Zawtar. Since most of this area was not occupied by Israeli troops initially, questions remain about how a withdrawal could occur there. The official noted that the Lebanese army had advocated for larger pilot zones encompassing more areas under Israeli occupation.
An Israeli military official, speaking anonymously under briefing guidelines, confirmed the army is awaiting instructions from the political leadership regarding the timing of the withdrawal.
### A Potential Political Deadlock Looms
Lebanon possesses a history of political violence, but its sectarian power-sharing system—divided among Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Christians, and Druze—is also susceptible to deadlock.
Powerful Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, an ally of Hezbollah, cautioned that the deal “will not pass, and it will not be implemented in its current form.”
Wissam Lahham, a constitutional law professor at St. Joseph University in Beirut, noted that under Lebanon’s constitution, a treaty is not legally binding until ratified by a two-thirds majority of the country's Cabinet. A vote by the Cabinet has not been scheduled. Lahham also mentioned uncertainty regarding whether parliamentary approval would be required, presenting another potential hurdle.
Kassem addressed the government in a Wednesday speech: “Ultimately, not a single clause of the framework agreement will be approved, and there will be nothing you can do about it.”
Michael Young, senior editor at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, commented that while the Lebanese government’s aim to keep Lebanon separate from Iranian negotiations on national sovereignty grounds was correct “in principle,” it is unrealistic in practice.
“You cannot reach any kind of solution with regard to Hezbollah unless Iran is on board,” he stated. “The Iranians will not give up on Hezbollah, and at the same time the Lebanese are not willing to enter into an armed conflict with Hezbollah.”