It is difficult to determine whether the two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran will actually include the Lebanon front, or whether circumstances will force a return to the November 27, 2024, agreement, which Israel breached and did not adhere to its provisions. These provisions were interpreted based on American guarantees that granted it the freedom to strike targets threatening its security. In reality, the previous agreement concerning Lebanon and Israel differs from what is currently being promoted, according to the Iranian version, which states that the ceasefire includes Lebanon, a commitment that Hezbollah has undertaken by decision of its authority.

Statements coming out of Israel regarding Lebanon confirm that the occupation separates the southern front from Iran, which implies that the ongoing war may take additional time and extend beyond developments on the Iranian front. The paradox is that Lebanon was not informed of the agreement between the United States and Iran, at least diplomatically, meaning that the negotiations marginalize the Lebanese state and even override its decision. Meanwhile, the party directly concerned is Hezbollah, as it adhered to the Iranian decision, leaving the Lebanese front inflamed after negotiation efforts failed in Lebanon and the state was excluded from the negotiation rooms despite the initiatives it offered. Lebanon remains engulfed in the raging war due to Hezbollah’s decision to support Iran and Israel’s push to occupy border areas south of the Litani River.

In the ongoing southern battle, at least until developments alter the existing realities amid destructive Israeli raids on Beirut and other regions, the political situation appears clear regarding the role of each party. Currently, there are no negotiations with the Lebanese state, which has been marginalized to the utmost extent and neglected under the indifference of the Americans toward all proposals concerning negotiations and related matters, while internal divisions have reached their peak due to alignments and disagreements over choices. As for Hezbollah, its Iranian affiliation prevails over its Lebanese position, as it rejects the official negotiation initiative and instead adheres to the Iranian decision, linking its fate with the country to Iran. It aims to place Lebanon at the center of any potential Iranian-American negotiations, effectively presenting itself as an alternative negotiating party to the state through Iran.

The fact remains that Lebanon will not exit the war, and this is linked to the objectives for which it erupted. Israel obtained an explicit American green light to achieve its objectives, as it declares, including disarming Hezbollah and pushing it north to prevent missile launches. Although its objectives are also political—aimed at altering realities in Lebanon by occupying southern areas and imposing a buffer security zone—it separates Lebanon from the Iranian issue, regardless of what can be achieved on its front.

This reality, despite Hezbollah's claims that it defends Lebanon, places the entire country within Israeli calculations and subjects it to them, as Israel seeks to control the Lebanese front exclusively and separate it from Iranian considerations. Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s bets in both battle and negotiation remain firmly within the Iranian orbit. Faced with the Israeli threat that puts Lebanon at a crossroads, Tehran views Lebanon merely as a stage it will not abandon in confrontation, unless it is reduced to a scorched land. Hezbollah’s connection to Iran is decisive, beyond Lebanese calculations. When major deals are struck, it becomes clear that Lebanon is merely a margin—manipulated and set ablaze for external objectives.

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