Late last month, Lebanon and Israel signed a framework agreement with the United States that Lebanon's chief negotiator, Nada Hamadeh Moawad, described as a "first step on the road to restoring Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity." But, as the agreement implicitly acknowledges, Israel is not the only threat to Lebanon's sovereignty. The departure of the Israel Defense Forces from southern Lebanon hinges on the "verified disarmament" of Iran's proxy, Hezbollah.
The terms of the framework agreement, negotiated with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, contradict those of the latest memorandum of understanding US Vice President JD Vance concluded with Iran. That agreement, with Pakistan and Qatar acting as mediators, focused on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran has made clear that this is conditional on the unqualified end to Israel's war against Hezbollah and withdrawal from Lebanon. The US thus negotiated parallel agreements based on two contradictory visions of Lebanon's place in the Middle East peace puzzle. Whereas the peace process Mr Vance led, and which has now apparently collapsed, was shaped largely by Iran's demands for Lebanon, the Rubio-mediated track treated the Israel-Lebanon conflict as though it were none of Iran's business.
Mr Vance is a political opportunist. He knew that President Donald Trump was desperate for a way out of the Iran war, and he wanted to deliver. But for now, it seems that Mr Rubio's diplomacy has prevailed over Mr Vance's facile deal-making. Not long after Mr Trump announced his expectation of a "complete ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Israel," Israel carried out a massive strike on Hezbollah's weapons stockpile in Lebanon -- and neither US nor Lebanese officials protested.
