There is no conclusion: the truce between Israel and Lebanon can quickly collapse
The truce reached between Israel and Lebanon is unlikely to be sustainable. Most likely, it will only be a temporary pause in the protracted confrontation, and not the beginning of a full-fledged settlement. Experts interviewed by Izvestia note that the 10-day ceasefire announced with the mediation of the United States reflects a desire to reduce the intensity of hostilities, but it does not remove key contradictions, primarily around the role of Hezbollah and Israel's demands for its disarmament. Under these conditions, even the possible launch of direct contacts between Lebanon and Israel does not guarantee a transition to long-term de-escalation. The situation is further complicated by the regional context: the Lebanese track is closely intertwined with the Iranian track, where Washington is trying to advance negotiations with Tehran.
Hezbollah criticizes negotiations with Israel
Israel and Lebanon have agreed on a temporary ceasefire. US President Donald Trump has announced that a 10-day truce between Israel and Hezbollah will come into force at midnight on April 17, Moscow time. The ceasefire period can be extended by mutual agreement in case of progress in negotiations, the State Department said.
According to him, the agreement was reached after talks with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump has already announced his intention to invite the leaders of the two countries to the White House for "the first meaningful talks since 1983." Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam welcomed the outcome, stressing that the ceasefire was a key goal of the negotiations in the United States.
At the same time, Beirut had previously effectively refused direct contacts with Israel. According to CNN, Joseph Aoun notified the American and Israeli sides that he did not intend to participate in negotiations with Benjamin Netanyahu until a sustainable ceasefire was reached and hostilities with Hezbollah stopped.
Attempts to establish contact are taking place against the background of the intensification of American diplomacy. Consultations with representatives of Israel and Lebanon took place in Washington this week, but they did not lead to a breakthrough: the Jewish state did not commit to withdrawing troops from southern Lebanon, as Beirut insisted. The Lebanese side, in turn, demanded a cease-fire as a precondition for any negotiations. Joseph Aoun voiced the same thesis at a meeting with British Deputy Foreign Minister Hamish Faulconer, calling the truce a "natural starting point" for launching a direct dialogue.
In Israel, the truce decision was largely promoted under pressure from Washington and is not perceived as definitively fixed within the country's leadership. According to media reports, the cabinet of Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to take into account the position of Donald Trump, who insisted on de-escalation.
At the same time, the main task of the IDF — the disarmament of the Shiite Hezbollah movement — remains unresolved at this stage, which increases the skepticism of part of the Israeli establishment. The Prime Minister himself had stressed the day before that the operation was continuing: the army was attacking the positions of the movement and trying to consolidate tactical successes, including in the direction of Bint Jbeil.
Netanyahu also said that Israeli forces would maintain a presence in their positions in southern Lebanon even after the ceasefire came into force, which increases doubts about the durability of the agreements reached.
Political tension is growing inside Lebanon. Hezbollah sharply criticizes the very possibility of direct negotiations with Israel. The movement had previously told Izvestia that such contacts were contrary to the Constitution and current laws of the country. According to his representative, the Lebanese leadership, by allowing dialogue with the Israeli side, "provokes the Lebanese people" and violates the fundamental prohibition on any form of interaction with Israel.
The escalation between Israel and Hezbollah has been ongoing since early March. According to the Lebanese Ministry of Health, the death toll from IDF strikes has exceeded 2,000, and more than 1.2 million people have been forced to flee their homes. Israel is also suffering losses — soldiers were killed, civilian casualties were recorded.
The truce won't last long
The truce reached is highly likely to be temporary and unlikely to develop into a sustainable agreement, said Lyudmila Samarskaya, a researcher at the laboratory of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, an orientalist.
In her opinion, the task for Israel — the disarmament of Hezbollah — is not disappearing anywhere and will remain a central element of its strategy on the northern borders.
— Israel would definitely like to separate the Lebanese direction from the Iranian one and not link the ceasefire regimes on these two fronts. Even if an agreement is reached between the leaders of the two countries, Israel would prefer to maintain freedom of action against Hezbollah, since it does not fully rely on the capabilities of the Lebanese army to disarm the organization, Lyudmila Samarskaya told Izvestia.
Musalam Sheaito, head of the office of the Lebanese TV channel Al Mayadeen in Russia, believes that at the current stage, Israel is primarily seeking to achieve a tangible military result, but in the longer term, its goal may be to provoke an internal conflict in Lebanon, up to the risk of civil war.
He told Izvestia that external pressure can affect Hezbollah's military capabilities, but this effect will not be rapid. The weakening of the movement's potential, according to the expert, is possible only in the longer term, and in the short term it will maintain its position.
Last year, the Lebanese leadership instructed the army to ensure the restriction and subsequent disarmament of Hezbollah, but in practice this task proved difficult to achieve.
Retired Lebanese General George Nader noted in an interview with Izvestia that the movement significantly surpasses the Lebanese army in terms of organization, accumulated combat experience and weapons, which makes any attempts to disarm it without a broad internal consensus almost unrealistic.
According to Nader, the key factor remains Israel's behavior after a possible de-escalation. If its forces are not fully withdrawn, it will effectively block any attempts by Beirut to fulfill its obligations to limit Hezbollah's armed presence and permanently preserve the current balance of power within the country.
The situation around Iran
The situation around Lebanon fits into a broader regional context. Iran had previously linked the dialogue with the United States to the cessation of the Israeli operation against Hezbollah, considering the strikes a factor undermining confidence in the negotiations. Attempts at mediation are continuing in parallel: Pakistan is working on organizing a new round of consultations between Washington and Tehran, but the dates of the meeting have not yet been determined. Despite cautious optimism, the parties remain seriously divided, primarily over the Iranian nuclear program.
Islamabad is making new attempts to bring the positions of Tehran and Washington closer. The visit of the commander-in-chief of the Pakistani army, Asim Munir, to Tehran, according to Reuters, made it possible to achieve some progress on the most difficult issues and increased the chances of holding a second round of negotiations. Nevertheless, the specific dates of the new meeting have not yet been determined.
Russia offers one of the settlement options, expressing its readiness to accept enriched uranium from Iran, but the United States rejected this initiative, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview with India Today.
At the same time, the United States is increasing pressure on Iran outside the diplomatic track. The Pentagon announced the launch of the Economic Fury program, aimed at tightening the sanctions regime and coordinating the efforts of various departments. In addition, Washington declares its readiness to stop attempts to provide material assistance to Tehran within the framework of the naval blockade. Such measures risk further complicating the atmosphere of dialogue.
With the introduction of a truce on the Lebanese-Israeli border, the Iranian side can show greater flexibility and willingness to engage in dialogue with the United States. However, even under these conditions, Tehran is likely not to agree to Washington's key demand — a complete abandonment of uranium enrichment.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
