Washington is betting that Israel can begin its promised withdrawal from southern Lebanon and hand over the fight against Hezbollah to the Lebanese army, even if the U.S.-Iran peace framework frays.
Two days of U.S.-brokered talks between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats in Rome ended Wednesday with the clearest sign yet U.S. officials believe the Israel-Lebanon peace deal can be siloed from the Iran war, the most recent trigger for the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
Israel invaded Lebanon’s south in March after the Tehran-backed militant group launched rockets into its territory in response to the war on Iran. Now renewed strikes are unraveling the June 17 U.S.-Iran peace framework, testing whether Lebanon can be walled off from Iran.
A U.S. State Department official told MBN that this week’s talks in Rome concluded with agreement on guidelines for the “pilot zone” process, which they said would be “finalized” within a few days.
Under the deal, Israel will withdraw from areas in Lebanon’s south and transfer control of the fight against Hezbollah to the Lebanese army.
“We will now move to expanded technical talks, which will focus on implementing all areas of the Trilateral Framework with the aim of reaching a comprehensive agreement between Israel and Lebanon,” the U.S. official said.
But the progress achieved in Rome crystallizes a question hanging over the recent U.S. diplomatic efforts: What happens to Lebanon if the peace framework negotiated with Iran formally collapses?
Washington is hoping the prospect of further peace talks will prompt Iran to hold Hezbollah back from reopening the Lebanon front.
Continued diplomacy reduces the risk of Hezbollah again launching cross-border attacks into Israel and provides time for the Lebanese army to expand its authority in the south. If successful, further rounds of Israeli withdrawals could then take place.
That’s the most favorable scenario to Washington: two separate peace deals reinforcing one another, while gradually reducing Iran’s ability to use Hezbollah as leverage against Israel in the future.
But there is a more complicated scenario: If the Iran framework breaks down, Tehran could again see Hezbollah as a means of hurting Israel and the United States.
Washington’s apparent bet is that last month’s Israel-Lebanon agreement has been structured well enough to continue without Iranian consent.
Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told MBN that while the U.S.-Iran memorandum brokered by U.S. Vice President JD Vance tied peace in Lebanon to peace with Iran, the Israel-Lebanon deal unveiled by Secretary of State Marco Rubio days later intentionally separated the two tracks.
The June 26 deal “effectively walls off the arsonists from the firefighters,” Levitt said, by ensuring Israeli-Lebanese cooperation against Hezbollah, while explicitly excluding Iran. “The framework agreement is more likely to succeed for the fact that it disposes of the notion that there need be any linkage to Iran,” he said.
The reality on the ground, though, is less certain.
Hezbollah has steadfastly rejected disarmament, while Israel’s government, with an eye on elections later this year, has indicated troops could remain in Lebanon’s south for an extended period.
While President Donald Trump has encouraged an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon – or at least a scaling-down of operations – any renewed Hezbollah attacks following a collapse of the U.S.-Iran deal would put Jerusalem under intense pressure to scrap the deal with Lebanon.
The U.S. State Department official did not respond directly to MBN’s questions about the impacts on the Israel-Lebanon deal if the U.S.-Iran deal frays, instead describing the talks in Rome as “productive.”
But the proof will be in the pudding.
The first Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon will inevitably test the wager that the Lebanon track can survive separately from the Iran peace framework. If Hezbollah resumes attacks and Israel freezes or reverses its withdrawals, the separation will become difficult to maintain.
