Speaking before Congress this week, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was insistent: America’s efforts to end the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon have nothing to do with negotiations over the Iran war.
“We are trying to view the Lebanon-Israeli talks as separate and distinct from Iran, and what Iran wants to do is mix it all together,” the U.S. secretary of state told senators in a hearing on Tuesday.
Yet by week’s end, Iran was openly linking the conflicts, citing Israel’s actions in Lebanon as a reason to halt back-channel talks with the U.S. while threatening to “complete” its closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
“This war will end only when it ends in Lebanon as well,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Lebanese TV on Thursday, calling the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon’s south a prerequisite for any peace deal with the Trump administration.
In a statement issued to Iranian state media the same day, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps made it even more unequivocal, describing the Lebanese and Iranian conflicts as part of a wider “regional war.”
“Our primary condition for accepting a ceasefire in the regional war has been a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon,” the IRGC said.
Israel’s military has occupied a nearly 15-kilometer stretch of southern Lebanon since early March, when the Tehran-backed Hezbollah used the territory to attack northern Israel after the war with Iran began.
The linkage between the conflicts comes as U.S. officials seek a broader deal to end hostilities with Iran and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. By making Lebanon part of that conversation, Tehran is attempting to expand the scope of talks beyond the issues the U.S. says it wants addressed.
In Washington, U.S. diplomats had earlier in the week pushed ahead with efforts to address Lebanon on its own terms, hosting a fifth round of Israel-Lebanon talks to establish a permanent peace deal.
The talks were preceded by Israeli forces advancing further into southern Lebanon and taking control of the historical Beaufort Castle, a hilltop fortress overlooking southern Lebanon. The move prompted Trump to phone Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and describe him, using profane terms, as “crazy.”
While Trump’s intervention appeared to halt Israeli plans for a strike on Beirut, Israeli operations in southern Lebanon continued as the Israel-Lebanon talks proceeded in Washington.
Washington’s approach faced an immediate test. Hezbollah rejected the ceasefire extension and fighting resumed within hours of its announcement.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun later said negotiations had in fact included Hezbollah’s role and security arrangements along the border, both issues that the Trump administration argues should be addressed internally in Lebanon rather than through any wider regional talks.
For Lebanese officials, though, the episode highlights a different problem: how little control Beirut has over a conflict on its territory.
Speaking to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in Beirut on Friday, Lebanon’s president lambasted Iran for using Hezbollah to transform Lebanon into a “bargaining chip in their negotiations with the U.S.”
“It’s not your country, it’s our country,” Aoun said.
Aoun’s frustration reflected a wider dilemma confronting Lebanon’s government. While Beirut has presented itself as an independent partner in talks with Israel, many of the conflict’s most consequential actors continue to view Lebanon as part of a wider conflict.
The tension was evident even in Rubio’s own description of the conflict, despite his insistence that Iran and Lebanon can be kept separate.
“Israel and Lebanon can do a peace deal tomorrow,” he said in a separate hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday. “Hezbollah is the impediment. There is no Hezbollah without Iran.
Alex Willemyns
Alex Willemyns is MBN’s Washington DC correspondent. He has more than a decade of experience reporting on international relations and U.S. foreign policy.
