The Shape of a Possible Agreement: Can the War on Lebanon End?

Speculations are growing around the possibility of an agreement between Israel and Hezbollah to end the war in Lebanon. Opinions range from optimism about an imminent breakthrough to pessimism, including threats by U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein to resign if negotiations fail.

Recent reports have stirred cautious optimism. According to The New York Times, U.S. officials have hinted at the emergence of a potential agreement. The deal reportedly involves a 60-day truce, during which Israel would withdraw from Lebanon while Hezbollah retreats to the north of the Litani River. However, Lebanese media have noted mixed signals, with reports of positive feedback from U.S.-Lebanon discussions after Hochstein’s meetings in Tel Aviv.

Conflicting Signals and Challenges

The conflicting narratives around an agreement raise questions about its feasibility. Lebanese political analyst Bilal Al-Liqais believes that several factors are pressuring Israel to seek a halt to hostilities. These include Israel’s military stagnation on the battlefield, its growing international isolation, and internal political and military struggles. Al-Liqais argues that Israel may be aiming to preserve the initial gains of its campaign as it increasingly appears to lose its advantage over time.

Al-Liqais also highlights the broader geopolitical stakes. He notes that the region is at a crossroads, with the U.S. administration facing a critical moment to either push for de-escalation or risk further regional conflagration. Despite these pressures, he doubts the current trajectory will lead to a definitive solution, suggesting instead that the fighting may slow without reaching a full resolution.

Military and Political Dynamics

Political analyst Ibrahim Haidar views the battlefield as a major factor shaping negotiations. He explains that Israel seeks to use its military advances in southern Lebanon, particularly its hold over villages near the Litani River, as leverage to push its conditions in talks. However, Lebanon perceives such terms as a violation of its sovereignty and insists on adherence to UN Resolution 1701, rejecting Israeli demands for military freedom of movement and a buffer zone.

Haidar underscores that any truce would likely defer a comprehensive settlement. Reports suggest that a temporary 60-day ceasefire is being discussed, but with Israel maintaining military flexibility, the broader conflict would remain unresolved. This leaves the door open for further escalation, particularly given Israel’s insistence on disarming Hezbollah, a demand firmly rejected by both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government.

Netanyahu’s Calculations

On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly holding regular consultations with senior security officials about a potential ceasefire. However, Israeli affairs expert Suleiman Basharat argues that the likelihood of a political or diplomatic resolution remains low, despite the optimistic rhetoric from U.S. and Israeli officials. He sees such optimism as a strategic narrative used during wartime, recalling similar patterns during the conflict in Gaza.

Basharat contends that Netanyahu and the religious Zionist movement view the war as an opportunity to advance broader objectives, including expanding settlements and restructuring Israeli institutions such as the military and judiciary. This political context reduces the incentives for Netanyahu to pursue an agreement, especially as he continues to view the war as existential for Israel’s goals.

Hezbollah’s Strategy and Unity of Fronts

Hezbollah’s stance is deeply intertwined with the broader regional conflict. Since the start of the Gaza war, the group has framed its operations in Lebanon as part of a unified front supporting Gaza. Both the late Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and his successor, Sheikh Naim Qassem, emphasized this interconnected resistance strategy.

However, analysts like Ibrahim Haidar suggest that the war in southern Lebanon has evolved beyond mere support for Gaza. It is now seen as a defensive battle to prevent further Israeli incursions into Lebanese territory. This shift has introduced new regional dynamics, with Hezbollah facing sustained military pressure that could complicate its ability to maintain long-term support for Gaza.

The Future of the Resistance Front

The concept of “unity of fronts” remains central to the resistance axis. Al-Liqais asserts that halting the war in Lebanon would inevitably impact Gaza, as Iran and regional powers are likely considering a comprehensive approach to managing the conflict. He argues that resistance forces are likely coordinating their strategies to ensure that ending hostilities in one arena does not weaken the broader resistance effort.

On the other hand, Haidar questions whether Hezbollah can sustain its dual-front strategy. He points to regional and international interests that could lead to a separation of the Lebanese and Gazan fronts, especially if Hezbollah agrees to a ceasefire under American-brokered terms.

Broader Regional Implications

The uncertainty surrounding a potential agreement reflects the deep complexities of the conflict. While some envision a phased resolution involving temporary truces, others warn that entrenched interests—both Israeli and regional—will continue to fuel hostilities.

For Lebanon, any agreement must address sovereignty concerns and avoid capitulating to Israeli terms. For the resistance axis, maintaining unity between Gaza and Lebanon remains a key priority. Ultimately, whether a political solution can emerge will depend on the ability of regional and global actors to navigate the competing interests at play.