On Wednesday morning, the region woke up to the announcement of a US-Iranian truce that ended the violent bombing of Iran. At the same time, Lebanon experienced a difficult day, as it was subjected to more than 100 Israeli raids within a few minutes, killing at least 254 people and wounding hundreds, according to Lebanese Civil Defense statistics.
These strikes, which were described as the most violent in years, appeared to be a clear field message directly targeting the concept of “unity of the arenas” that Tehran seeks to establish. This concept, which Iran and its allies tried to impose on the ground and was subjected to a real test with Hezbollah’s entry into the war with Israel, today faces its greatest challenges.
The continuation of the massacres in Lebanon in conjunction with the cessation of the bombing of Iran raises fundamental questions about the ability of this equation to withstand Israeli and American efforts to undermine it.
Some observers believe that the intensified air campaign on Lebanon is not just an isolated military action, but rather a strategic attempt to cut ties between the fronts and cause the greatest possible damage to the infrastructure and environment supporting Hezbollah, in preparation for imposing a new reality in which each front is dealt with separately.
This goal was expressed by Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, who stressed that Israel “insisted on separating the war with Iran from the fighting in Lebanon, in order to change reality and remove threats.”
This matter is consistent with the efforts of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to impose a “buffer zone” 10 kilometers deep, in an attempt to break the “coexistence of paths” equation that Tehran insists on.
On the other hand, the American position was firm on the issue of separating the fronts. US President Donald Trump stated that the war in Lebanon was a “separate skirmish” and was not included in the deal “because of Hezbollah.”
His deputy, J.D. Vance, confirmed that the Iranian belief that Lebanon is included in the agreement is a “misunderstanding,” stressing that the focus is on Iran, Israel, and the Gulf states.
In contrast, the Pakistani position, the guarantor of the truce, was contrary to the American narrative. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that the agreement includes “Lebanon and other places with immediate effect.”
Pakistani Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal Chaudhry also warned that the Israeli bombing of Beirut “undermines the spirit of the peace process,” stressing that a comprehensive settlement must include all fronts.
These developments put Tehran in front of a strategic dilemma: accepting Israel’s exclusivity in Lebanon would effectively mean the collapse of the principle of “unity of arenas.”
In this regard, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqir Qalibaf considered that “there is no point in a ceasefire or negotiations” after three basic provisions were violated, most notably the failure to adhere to the ceasefire in Lebanon.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi also gave Washington a choice between “a ceasefire or the continuation of the war through Israel,” amid reports that Iran had closed the Strait of Hormuz to 99% of ships.
Inside Lebanon, fears are increasing that Lebanon will be left alone in this confrontation, especially after Hezbollah entered the war on March 2.
Amid this atmosphere, Hezbollah announced its commitment to the ceasefire agreement between Iran and the United States, while adopting “field silence” during which no missile launches were recorded until the end of Wednesday.
But this commitment did not last long, as the party announced at dawn on Thursday the launch of a missile launch targeting the “Al-Manara” settlement, justifying this step as a response to “the enemy’s violation of the ceasefire agreement,” and vowing to continue the response until “the Israeli-American aggression against Lebanon stops.”
As Friday’s negotiations in Islamabad approach, the scene looks like a frantic race. Between Israel’s efforts to impose a new reality on the ground, and Tehran’s efforts to consolidate the “conjunction of paths” equation, the fate of “the unity of the fields” remains dependent on the results of the negotiations, or the possibility of the region once again sliding into open war.
