- Статьи
- World
- A system without guarantees: a truce between Israel and Lebanon will not speed up negotiations with Iran
A system without guarantees: a truce between Israel and Lebanon will not speed up negotiations with Iran
The truce between Israel and Lebanon, previously brokered by the United States, was extended for another three weeks on April 24. Washington intends to scale up its diplomatic success and organize a meeting of the leaders of the two countries in the near future. According to the White House, it will help achieve long-term peace and contribute to the final disarmament of the Lebanese Hezbollah. And in the future— the conclusion of a "big deal" with Iran. At the same time, the situation in Lebanon remains precarious, and the current reduction in friction between Beirut and the Jewish state is unlikely to help the United States make serious progress in negotiations with Iran, experts say.
Extending the silence mode
The decision to extend the truce between Lebanon and Israel was the result of the second round of negotiations that took place on April 24 in Washington. Initially, it was assumed that the meeting of the Lebanese and Israeli delegations would be held at the US State Department and would focus on discussing working issues. This includes the formal resolution of some incidents (for example, the act of vandalism by an IDF soldier against a Christian shrine in the village of Debl in southern Lebanon). However, at the last moment, the talks were moved to the White House, and among the invited figures were US Vice President Jay Dee Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
US Vice President Jay Dee Vance, US President Donald Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, White House, Washington, USA
Following the meeting, US President Donald Trump announced a "significant extension" of the truce, at least until May 14. "The United States will work with Lebanon to help it defend itself against Hezbollah. The truce between Israel and Lebanon will be extended for three weeks. I look forward to receiving Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun in the near future," he wrote on Truth Social.
Despite the fact that the truce is positioned by the White House as "balanced" and taking into account the interests of both sides, the Israelis received a little more concessions from Washington. In particular, the right to "proactive defense" in response to "enemy provocations." Thanks to this reservation, the Israeli forces have maintained operational activity both within the framework of their "security line" in the border areas and far beyond its borders.
Political analyst Dastan Tokoldoshev, in an interview with Izvestia, noted in this regard that the presence of the Israeli contingent in Lebanon creates a "wave of tension" among the local population, which slows down the preparation of a new round "at the top." According to the expert, the Lebanese government today has no real levers of influence on the activities of Hezbollah (and cannot quickly disarm Shiite militias), but at the same time, Israel has actually appointed him to "blame" for the threat to national security. Therefore, the mediation of the United States, although it partially smooths the situation, does not completely solve long-standing problems.
— The Israeli operation in Lebanon is positioned as an independent military action. The IDF has no coordination mechanisms with the United States. Therefore, Washington's main mediator of the negotiations is unable to decisively influence the behavior of Israeli soldiers in the buffer zone, which is why the situation is taking on a noticeable negative connotation," the expert concluded.
The position of the Lebanese Hezbollah remains unclear. Shortly before the results of the meeting in Washington were announced, Israeli media reported that the Shiite forces generally welcomed the proposal to extend the respite for several more weeks. They referred to Hassan Fadlallah, a Lebanese MP who represents the interests of the movement in Parliament. But the top leadership of Hezbollah has so far refrained from making assessments, and continues to demand the complete withdrawal of the IDF from the territory of southern Lebanon. Otherwise, there can be no question of any voluntary disarmament.
In general, the situation in southern Lebanon is characterized as precarious: during the first day of the extended truce, at least two dozen cases of ceasefire violations became known. The latest of these is the combined IDF strikes on targets in the Khirbat Salem and Tulin areas. According to the army's press service, the territory was used by Hezbollah for attacks on the Jewish state and served as a "legitimate target." Hezbollah, in turn, refutes this thesis, noting that civilian infrastructure was attacked and civilians were injured under the guise of preemptive fire.
In total, according to analysts, the parties have already committed at least 200 violations, for which they are shifting responsibility to each other.
Negotiations with Iran remain difficult
The intensification of American diplomacy on the Lebanese track, including attempts by Lebanon and Israel to reason with Hezbollah, should be interpreted as part of the work to prepare the basis for a future deal with Iran. Moreover, at the initial stages of the settlement, the main stumbling block in the dialogue with Tehran was the continuation of hostilities in southern Lebanon.
In mid—April, Iran welcomed the U.S.-initiated cease-fire in Lebanon - and with this in mind, even announced free passage through the Strait of Hormuz for a while. However, he quickly adjusted his position, shifting the focus to ending military pressure on Hezbollah. Washington took note of these demands, but did not take any real steps.
However, Tehran's further refusal from a new round of negotiations with Washington and the actual freezing of the Islamabad format forced the White House to reconsider its position somewhat. In addition to the progress in Lebanon, the US president agreed to a unilateral extension of the non-aggression regime against Iran. Thus making it clear that the United States is still leaning towards a diplomatic rather than a military option.
At the same time, Trump continues to broadcast contradictory signals, either noting "significant positive changes" in the dialogue with Iran and certain "progressive forces," or threatening Tehran to "shoot and sink" its ships in the event of a breakdown in the negotiation process. All this is supported by significant hints of possible repeated interference in the internal political landscape of the republic. "If there is a camp in Iran that wants a deal and a camp that opposes it, then those who do not want a deal should be killed," he wrote on Truth Social on April 23.
The resulting uncertainty, in turn, only further inflames the debate over whether or not there should be peace between the United States and Iran. And pessimistic assessments are gradually beginning to dominate.
As Ivan Bocharov, the INF program manager, noted in an interview with Izvestia, a complex of contradictions remains between Tehran and Washington, which prevent them from moving towards a long-term settlement. In addition to disagreements over Lebanon, which in the past almost led to the breakdown of the process, disagreements about the Iranian nuclear program and its development prospects remain insurmountable.
"The minimum requirements of the United States and Iran's minimum requirements on the issue of the nuclear program do not coincide, because Tehran has already reached a sufficiently high level of development of these technologies, at which it does not really want to roll back," the expert noted.
In addition, Bocharov draws attention to the position of Israel, which can play the role of a potential "spoiler." Especially if the framework proposed by the United States for a future "grand bargain" with Iran runs counter to the national interests or strategic priorities of the Jewish state.
However, the key factor is the lack of confidence among the Iranian authorities in the sincerity of the US intentions. Tehran's previous negative experience — whether it was the failure of the 2015 nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), fruitless negotiations on lifting sanctions, or a series of military actions prepared under the guise of diplomatic meetings — significantly limits the range of acceptable public concessions. Moreover, the Pentagon, under the guise of peaceful rhetoric, continues to pull new forces, including naval ones, to the Middle East.
And although Tehran publicly interprets the US efforts in Lebanon rather in favor of detente (and even, according to Arab media reports, it is preparing to send Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi to Islamabad to resume negotiations), they alone will not be enough to restore the previous pace of settlement.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
