Within minutes, Lebanon became an open battlefield of fire. More than 100 airstrikes over a 10-minute span targeted, according to the Israeli army, “headquarters and military infrastructure belonging to Hezbollah across Beirut, the south, and the Bekaa” at the same time. The unprecedented scope signaled an expansion of targeting to residential neighborhoods and key areas, causing numerous casualties and sparking widespread panic.
The strikes were not only surprising in their scale, but also on their timing. While Lebanon was anticipating that it might be included in the declared truce between the United States and Iran, the raids confirmed exactly the opposite: Lebanon is outside the de-escalation and at the heart of escalation.
The Israeli army spokesperson Avichay Adraee published images of Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir inside the operations room during the strikes. Zamir confirmed that the army would continue targeting the group without interruption and would not compromise on the security of northern Israel. This came despite Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s announcement that the ceasefire agreement includes Lebanon—a position Tehran also maintained—but Israel quickly and clearly denied this.
For its part, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that Israel supports U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend attacks on Iran for two weeks but stressed that this agreement does not include Lebanon.
Official Lebanese Position
On the Lebanese side, President Joseph Aoun welcomed the truce, expressing hope that any agreement would include Lebanon and affirming the state’s commitment to confining decisions of war and peace to its institutions.
However, following the Israeli strikes, Aoun held Israel responsible for the escalation, warning that the continuation of such policies would lead to further tension and calling on the international community to intervene.
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam also stated that Israel is expanding its strikes “to include densely populated residential neighborhoods, ignoring all international efforts, in a clear violation of international law.”
Meanwhile, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri requested from Pakistan’s ambassador to Lebanon, Salman Athar, to “convey the facts about Israel’s non-compliance with the agreement and its continued aggression against Lebanon, particularly in the south.”
In contrast, a source in the Foreign Ministry told Alhurra that Lebanon “was not informed of being included in any agreement,” and that “the Lebanese state is the only party authorized to negotiate.”
Is Lebanon Being Left Alone?
At the same time, media reports indicated that Iran is considering options to respond to Israeli strikes in Lebanon, amid talk of potential escalatory steps.
On the other hand, Trump confirmed in remarks to PBS that Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire agreement.
Hezbollah had entered the confrontation in support of Iran since March 2, 2026, before Tehran moved toward de-escalation without including the Lebanese arena, according to observers.
MP Ibrahim Mneimneh told Alhurra that Netanyahu’s statements excluding Lebanon from the truce “reflect a clear intention to continue escalation with the aim of eliminating Hezbollah, regardless of the course of negotiations,” noting that the Iranian position does not suggest full commitment toward its allies.
For his part, strategic expert retired Brigadier General Saeed Al-Qazah said that “Tehran uses its proxies in the region to defend its interests but does not intervene directly to protect them when they come under attack.”
Al-Qazah told Alhurra that any U.S.–Iran understanding will not include Hezbollah, “as Israel sees it as a direct threat and will not accept its continued armament on its borders.”
Political analyst and journalist Youssef Diab believes that “Israel is applying in Lebanon a policy similar to Gaza,” noting that the recent strikes “are the most intense on Beirut and reflect a transition to a phase of open war with no red lines.”
Diab added to Alhurra that “the Lebanon front is likely to take center stage,” arguing that “Iran will seek to secure what suits it from any agreement with the United States, leaving Hezbollah in direct confrontation with Israel, while Lebanon as a whole pays the price of this escalation.”
A Pivotal Phase
Images of displaced people returning to the south following the truce announcement were widely circulated, before the Lebanese army command called on citizens to exercise caution and avoid approaching areas witnessing Israeli incursions.
In this context, the internal Lebanese picture appears more complex, as Hezbollah faces increasing challenges domestically, particularly in terms of maintaining support within its base amid the continuation of the confrontation after the war on the Iranian front has subsided.
Diab believes that the party “relies on its rhetoric to maintain the support of its base, especially among supporters convinced of its choices, despite internal opposition, including within the Shiite community.” He notes that the party “does not give weight to critical voices, prioritizing its strategic interests linked to Iran over all other domestic considerations.”
In light of these developments, Lebanon appears to be heading toward a more complex phase, where the path of regional de-escalation intersects with continued escalation on its own territory.
Between negotiations whose contours are not yet clear, an Israeli strategy based on separating fronts, and Hezbollah’s insistence on retaining its weapons, the most likely scenario is that Lebanon will continue to pay a heavy price—whether the region moves toward de-escalation or further escalation.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
