Was the American-Israeli pressure on Lebanon to appoint a civilian to the “Mechanism” committee - a body with a primarily military mandate - a deliberate move to push Lebanon, which complied by assigning former ambassador Simon Karam, toward incremental concessions and ultimately bring it to the negotiating table for a new agreement?

All recent developments reinforce this impression. From the return of the quintet committee to action, to the absence of U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus from Lebanon during its meetings, the inability to agree on a convening date, and the travel of its head, U.S. General Joseph Clearfield, to ongoing daily Israeli attacks that the committee cannot keep pace with - combined with leaks suggesting a clear French-American divergence, with France seeking a broader practical role - these are all signs of an American-Israeli strategy being quietly executed.

The aim appears to be to first disable the committee, and eventually render it irrelevant, as Tel Aviv - without opposition from Washington - seeks to annul the ceasefire agreement signed on November 27, 2024.

According to available information, the committee has no meetings scheduled - neither in the near future nor later - amid behind-the-scenes maneuvering shaping the next phase: the annulment of the agreement through Israel’s deliberate refusal to implement it. When Israel initially agreed to the agreement, it did so expecting that Hezbollah would reject it, making its own consent a surprise to both Tel Aviv and Washington. Even Hezbollah’s adherence to the agreement’s provisions remains unexpected, as its leadership continues to deny its commitments and refuses to surrender its weapons.

In parallel with voiding the agreement, Tel Aviv has actively sought to undermine the mission of the international force in southern Lebanon and push it toward withdrawal. The force has already begun this drawdown, with approximately 2,500 personnel withdrawn since the UN decision, while its budget has been cut by 25 to 30 percent.

In this scene, a series of questions arise as follows:

• Will American-Israeli pressure push the Lebanese state to pursue a new agreement, and what form would such an agreement take?

• Has the UN’s role in Lebanon effectively ended with the UNIFIL withdrawal, leaving the field primarily to the U.S., or at least to American sponsorship that could allow a conditional European involvement?

• Will the new agreement be based on the 1949 armistice, updated and modified into a non-aggression pact or truce?

According to available information, Lebanon is moving toward a new agreement, though its exact features have yet to be defined. All indicators point to preparations for a new decision, potentially starting at the UN Security Council, to deploy new security forces - especially after several European countries expressed a desire to remain and continue their missions. This could take the form of a UN resolution or even a purely European initiative issued by the European Union under American sponsorship and oversight.

In reality, Lebanon’s interest lies in maintaining the UN umbrella, ensuring that any European or multinational presence operates under the UN flag. It is worth noting that the Lebanese President had given indications in this context in his latest television interview.

It is possible that serious discussions are underway to amend the 1949 armistice agreement as an alternative to the current ceasefire. Regarding the “Mechanism,” Lebanon has been informed through diplomatic channels that there is no longer interest in continuing its work. Consequently, Lebanon must seriously consider the proposal to negotiate with Israel at the ministerial level under American sponsorship.

Lebanon continues to keep this proposal confidential, aiming to block it and, at a minimum, revive the tripartite committee if maintaining the “Mechanism” committee is no longer possible, as is currently the case. Beirut is seeking to buy time while awaiting the upcoming UN briefing in about six months, in order to assess the outcomes of ongoing diplomatic efforts. These follow fact-finding visits by both the expanded UN delegation weeks ago and the Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, which focused on the post-UNIFIL phase and ways to prevent a security vacuum in the south amid challenges facing the Lebanese army in completing and expanding its deployment.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.