Lebanon-Israel talks overshadowed by new US-Iran diplomatic track
Submitted by
Adam Chamseddine
on
Tue, 06/23/2026 - 14:08
New round of direct negotiations opens amid uncertainty over how it will intersect with deconfliction mechanism negotiated in Switzerland
Mourners carry the casket of a slain Hezbollah fighter during his funeral in Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on 23 June 2026 (Abbas Fakih/AFP)
Off
Lebanon and Israel began a fifth round of direct negotiations in Washington on Tuesday, with Beirut seeking to revive proposals for an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon even as a new US-Iran diplomatic channel threatens to overshadow the talks.
The three-day negotiations come after four previous rounds failed to produce a lasting ceasefire or bridge the wide gap between the two sides.
Lebanon is expected to press for a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal, the return of hundreds of thousands of displaced people, the release of Lebanese prisoners and the beginning of reconstruction.
Israel, meanwhile, has tied any withdrawal to the disarmament of Hezbollah and has insisted that its forces retain control of a wide security zone inside southern Lebanon until it is satisfied that the Lebanese army can prevent the group from rebuilding its military presence.
But the negotiations are taking place in a markedly different diplomatic environment from the previous round earlier this month.
A memorandum of understanding signed between the United States and Iran placed the Lebanese front within a wider regional ceasefire framework. Subsequent talks near Lake Lucerne in Switzerland also produced plans for a mechanism intended to reduce tensions between Israel and Hezbollah.
The development means the Washington negotiations are no longer the only diplomatic forum dealing with the war in Lebanon.
For the Lebanese presidency, which has promoted the direct talks as an attempt to return decisions over war, peace and sovereignty to state institutions, the emergence of the Swiss channel has raised difficult questions over who ultimately controls the negotiations.
President Joseph Aoun has repeatedly said that no foreign power can negotiate on Lebanon’s behalf.
“We welcome any assistance to end the war, but we are a sovereign country and no one negotiates on our behalf,” Aoun said ahead of the latest round.
Lebanese officials have described the decision to enter direct negotiations with Israel as a historic step through which the state would reclaim responsibility for the country’s foreign and security policies.
Article 52 of Lebanon’s constitution gives the president responsibility for negotiating international treaties in agreement with the prime minister. Any eventual treaty would also require the approval of the cabinet and, depending on its terms, parliament.
However, sources familiar with the decision said the opening of direct talks was also the result of intense US pressure on Beirut.
Talks without a ceasefire
Aoun had previously insisted that a comprehensive ceasefire should precede negotiations over an Israeli withdrawal, the return of displaced Lebanese, prisoners and reconstruction.
But the direct talks proceeded even as Israel continued its strikes and ground operations in Lebanon.
Four rounds of negotiations since April have failed to secure a durable halt to the fighting. However, the longest lull in Israeli bombing came only after the US-Iran memorandum, rather than any agreement reached directly between Lebanon and Israel.
That has strengthened Hezbollah’s argument that Iran’s negotiations with Washington are more capable of extracting an Israeli ceasefire than the Lebanese government’s bilateral track.
It has also exposed the tension at the heart of Beirut’s strategy: Lebanon entered the direct negotiations to prevent regional powers from deciding its future, only for Iran to place Lebanon at the centre of its own talks with the United States.
The fourth Washington round, held on 2 and 3 June, ended with a joint statement issued by the United States, Lebanon and Israel.
The statement said a ceasefire would be contingent on a complete halt to Hezbollah’s attacks and the removal of its operatives from the area south of the Litani River.
It also announced that the parties would move towards establishing “pilot zones” in which the Lebanese Armed Forces would exercise exclusive control and non-state armed groups would be excluded.
The statement emphasised that the future of Lebanese-Israeli relations should be determined by the two governments and rejected attempts by any state or non-state actor to hold Lebanon’s future hostage.
The wording was strongly criticised by Hezbollah, which viewed it as an attempt to impose unilateral obligations on the group while offering no binding commitment for an Israeli withdrawal.
Hezbollah officials described the direct negotiations as a grave mistake that granted Israel political gains it had long sought without requiring it to end its occupation or military operations.
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who served as the principal Lebanese channel during previous indirect negotiations, has also argued that Beirut should continue to use the ceasefire-monitoring mechanism established after the cessation of hostilities agreement that ended the 2024 war with Israel.
Berri has publicly rejected limited pilot zones, calling instead for a comprehensive ceasefire, a full Israeli withdrawal and parallel implementation by both sides.
The battle over Bint Jbeil
A senior source close to the Lebanese delegation told Middle East Eye that the pilot-zone proposal had nearly caused the previous negotiations to collapse.
According to the source, Israel initially rejected the proposal, prompting the Lebanese delegation to threaten to withdraw from the session.
US officials then intervened and persuaded the Israeli delegation to accept the principle of pilot zones, although the two sides remained divided over where they should be established and what obligations would apply.
The Lebanese delegation proposed Bint Jbeil as the first pilot area.
Exclusive: How Hezbollah rebuilt while its enemies declared it dead
»
The southern city lies within what Israel describes as the “Yellow Line” – a military boundary it has marked inside Lebanese territory to indicate areas under its operational control and restrictions.
By nominating Bint Jbeil, Beirut sought to challenge the possibility that the Israeli-controlled area would gradually become a permanent buffer zone.
The Lebanese proposal envisaged an Israeli withdrawal from the city, followed by the deployment of the Lebanese army, the dismantling of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure and the return of residents.
Israel rejected Bint Jbeil as the initial test area, according to the source.
“The Israelis appeared as though they had been dragged into the negotiating room by the Americans,” the source said.
“You could see it on their faces. They did not want to be there.”
Israel instead proposed retaining control of the entire “Yellow Line” while monitoring the Lebanese army’s operations against Hezbollah both south and north of the Litani River.
Only after assessing the army’s performance and its ability to dismantle Hezbollah’s positions would Israel consider discussing further withdrawals, the source said.
For Lebanon, such a formula would risk turning Israel’s current positions into a semi-permanent security zone while leaving withdrawal dependent on an open-ended Israeli assessment of the Lebanese army.
From villages to districts
The Lebanese delegation is expected to return to the pilot-zone proposal during the fifth round and attempt to expand its geographical scope.
The areas discussed during the previous negotiations were largely individual villages or narrowly defined sectors.
A presidential source close to the talks said a broader formula involving entire districts has also been raised. Such districts would incorporate numerous towns and villages on both sides of the Litani River, rather than testing the arrangement in isolated localities.
The source said this approach had also been discussed by Berri, despite his public rejection of limited pilot zones.
Under such a formula, an Israeli withdrawal, Lebanese army deployment, the return of residents and the removal of Hezbollah’s military presence would take place across a much larger area.
But the differences remain fundamental.
Lebanon wants withdrawal to begin the process. Israel wants evidence of Hezbollah’s disarmament before surrendering the territory it controls.
A second negotiating table
The greatest uncertainty surrounding the Washington talks, however, comes from the diplomatic mechanism emerging from the US-Iran negotiations in Switzerland.
US Vice President JD Vance said the talks had produced a mechanism intended to reduce tensions in Lebanon and prevent renewed escalation.
Details of the proposed body, variously described as a deconfliction cell or tension-reduction committee, have not been made public.
The source close to Lebanon's presidential palace told MEE that Lebanese officials had not yet received a full explanation of the body's membership, authority or relationship with the existing Washington negotiations.
The mechanism would include Lebanon, Iran and the United States, with Pakistan and Qatar potentially playing roles as mediators.
Ceasefires and construction: Satellite images reveal how Israel is cementing its presence in Lebanon and Syria
»
The source said the working logic appeared to be that Washington would communicate with Israel, while Iran would communicate with Hezbollah, with the Lebanese state participating directly.
Such an arrangement would leave neither Israel nor Hezbollah formally represented but would give both indirect access through their principal international allies.
Israel has voiced concern that the mechanism grants Iran a recognised role in Lebanon while potentially restricting Israeli military operations.
Lebanese officials face another concern: that Iran could use the process to speak for Hezbollah and negotiate matters affecting Lebanese territory independently of the government in Beirut.
The presidency nevertheless appears prepared to engage with the mechanism provided that the US leads it and the Lebanese state remains formally represented.
According to the presidential source, Washington’s recognition of the Pakistan-backed diplomatic initiative does not necessarily mean the Washington and Swiss tracks are mutually exclusive.
The two processes could eventually converge: the direct talks would address Lebanese-Israeli territorial and political disputes, while the Swiss mechanism would attempt to enforce calm between Israel and Hezbollah through US and Iranian guarantees.
But no framework has yet been established to determine where the authority of one process ends and the other begins.
“The Washington and Swiss tracks do not have to remain separate,” the source said.
“The question is how they will intersect. At this stage, that is still not clear.”
Israel's war on Lebanon
Beirut
News
Post Date Override
0
Update Date
Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19
Update Date Override
0
