Israel and Lebanon have completed a third day of the latest round of US-mediated negotiations in Washington without reaching agreement on a partial Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
The talks, which are expected to continue, are the fifth round of US-brokered negotiations between the two countries. The United States had hoped this round would produce a framework agreement under which Israel would partially withdraw from small areas of its buffer zone in southern Lebanon, with Lebanese Armed Forces replacing Israeli troops.
Instead, the negotiations have become entangled with the recently signed US-Iran memorandum of understanding, which both Israel and Lebanon reportedly believe has complicated the process.
Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yahil Lighter, who is leading Israel’s delegation, described the negotiations as a “train wreck”. According to Lighter, earlier rounds had been built around a shared understanding between Israel, Lebanon and the United States: full peace and security between Israel and Lebanon, the removal of Iranian influence from Lebanon, and the dismantling of Hezbollah.
He argued that the new US-Iran agreement has shifted the balance by drawing Lebanon into Washington’s broader negotiations with Tehran. In his view, the central issue should not be how much Iran can restrain Hezbollah, but how Lebanon can recover its sovereignty.
“It is not Iran’s role,” Lighter said. “Its role is to leave Lebanon. The role of the Lebanese government is to exercise its sovereignty.”
Why Hezbollah Makes Lebanon So Difficult to Negotiate With
The heart of the problem is Hezbollah’s position inside Lebanon.
Hezbollah is not simply an outside militia operating on Lebanese soil. Nor is it merely a political party. It is both: an armed movement, a political actor, a social service provider, and an Iranian-backed force with its own military command.
Founded in 1982 with Iranian backing, Hezbollah initially presented itself as a resistance movement against Israel’s presence in southern Lebanon. Over time, it built schools, hospitals, social services and military infrastructure that operate independently of the Lebanese government. In parts of southern Lebanon and Beirut, its presence can be stronger than that of the state itself.
Hezbollah also holds seats in Lebanon’s parliament and has at times held cabinet positions. This dual identity makes the issue especially difficult. The Lebanese state has neither been able nor willing to disarm Hezbollah, partly because the Lebanese Armed Forces are too weak to force the matter, and partly because Hezbollah has real support among its Shia constituency.
Lebanon’s own political system is built around sectarian power-sharing. The president must be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of parliament Shia. Hezbollah operates primarily within the Shia political sphere and is aligned with Amal, another major Shia movement. This gives Hezbollah significant influence inside the Lebanese system.
Yet Hezbollah’s armed decisions are not controlled by the Lebanese government. The transcript describes Hezbollah as Iran’s most important regional proxy and part of Iran’s “axis of resistance”. Through Hezbollah, Iran can project power into the Levant, threaten Israel, and apply pressure without directly fighting Israel itself.
Hezbollah’s Conflict With Israel Is Ideological and Strategic
Hezbollah’s hostility toward Israel is not merely tactical. The transcript notes that Hezbollah’s 1985 founding manifesto called for Israel’s elimination, and that resistance to Israel remains central to the organisation’s identity.
That matters because attacks on Israel also serve a domestic purpose for Hezbollah. They help justify its armed status, its political relevance, and its claim to act as Lebanon’s defender.
After Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, Hezbollah opened what it called a solidarity front in northern Israel. This created sustained low-level conflict, tying down Israeli forces and resources. According to the update, Hezbollah sought to maintain pressure without triggering a wider Israeli response, but miscalculated how far Israel was prepared to go.
Since Israel’s March 2026 offensive pushed forces into southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has framed its continued rocket and drone fire as resistance to Israeli occupation. That argument has some resonance in Lebanon, even among people uncomfortable with Hezbollah’s wider agenda.
This leaves Lebanon in a painful position. The Lebanese state is legally responsible for what happens on its territory, but it does not control Hezbollah’s military decisions. It can enter ceasefire discussions while Hezbollah refuses to honour them.
The Core Dispute: Withdrawal or Disarmament First?
The current Washington negotiations are centred on the security architecture of southern Lebanon.
Israel wants Hezbollah disarmed south of the Litani River before it withdraws. Lebanon wants Israeli withdrawal before, or at least alongside, disarmament.
The main issues include proposed security zones, Hezbollah’s disarmament, Israeli withdrawal, pilot zones under Lebanese Armed Forces control, and enforcement mechanisms to verify compliance.
One area of partial progress is the idea of pilot zones. These would be areas where the Lebanese Armed Forces take exclusive control and all non-state armed actors are excluded. The aim is to build confidence and test whether Lebanese state authority can be restored on the ground.
According to the transcript, several points have reportedly been discussed or conditionally agreed: a ceasefire contingent on Hezbollah halting fire and withdrawing from the southern Litani sector, the creation of pilot zones, a declaration that Hezbollah is an enemy of Lebanon, and a mutual non-hostility commitment between Lebanon and Israel.
But the unresolved question remains enforcement. Who verifies compliance, and what happens if either side alleges a violation?
Why the US-Iran Agreement Has Changed the Talks
The US-Iran memorandum of understanding has made the Israel-Lebanon negotiations more difficult because Iran now has a separate lever over Lebanon through its broader agreement with Washington.
The memorandum reportedly calls for a cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, and commits to Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Iran is treating this as a US commitment to stop Israeli operations in Lebanon. Israel rejects that interpretation, arguing that it is not bound by an agreement it did not sign.
This places the United States in a difficult position. Washington has made commitments to Iran that it may not be able to enforce, because it cannot simply compel Israel to stop acting in Lebanon.
For Israel, this is deeply problematic. It sees Lebanon as an immediate security concern, not a bargaining chip in a US-Iran arrangement. From Israel’s perspective, giving Iran leverage over Israeli military decisions through Washington is both presumptuous and dangerous.
Fighting Continues While Diplomacy Struggles
Even as talks continue in Washington, fighting has not stopped.
Israeli Defence Minister Katz said this week that Israel will not yet withdraw from Lebanon, and that hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese residents still cannot return home.
Israel also continues military operations in Lebanon. According to the transcript, Israel carried out strikes in southern Lebanon against what it said were Hezbollah operatives who posed threats to Israeli troops. Hezbollah accused Israel of breaching the ceasefire after what it said was an Israeli drone strike that killed three Lebanese civilians travelling in a car in the Nabatieh district village of Meidoun. The IDF said five Hezbollah operatives were killed in the strike and that troops killed a Hezbollah gunman in another incident.
The situation remains fragile. Each side accuses the other of violations, and Hezbollah continues to use Israel’s presence in Lebanon as justification for further attacks.
A Region Still Searching for Peace
The Israel-Lebanon talks reveal a deeper regional problem. Lebanon cannot fully act as a sovereign state while Hezbollah retains an independent military structure backed by Iran. Israel is unwilling to withdraw without credible guarantees that Hezbollah will not rebuild along its northern border. The United States is trying to mediate, but its agreement with Iran has introduced new complications.
From a human perspective, peace appears increasingly elusive.
For Christians watching these events, the right response is not despair, but prayer. We should pray for wisdom for the leaders of Israel, Lebanon and the United States. We should pray for the removal of malign influence, for the protection of innocent lives, and for a true peace that cannot be secured by diplomacy alone.
And above all, we continue to pray for the peace of Jerusalem and for the coming of the Messiah of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the end, only the Lord can protect His people and establish a kingdom of peace and righteousness.