The Lebanese front is turning, according to a report published by Newsweek magazine, into one of the main nodes in the course of the US-Iranian negotiations, after the fate of the confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah became part of the broader calculations linked to any possible settlement between Washington and Tehran, in light of Iranian insistence on including a cessation of fighting in Lebanon within any permanent agreement.
With the White House hosting rare talks between the military leaders of Israel and Lebanon, the ongoing battle on the sidelines of the US-Israeli war against Iran has moved to the forefront of the scene, as Israel is pressing to disarm Hezbollah, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirms that the confrontation with the party has not ended, regardless of the progress in the US-Iranian negotiations.
On the other hand, Iran, which says it withstood the war launched by the United States and Israel against it three months ago, demands that any permanent peace agreement include a cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon.
This condition places US President Donald Trump facing a complex equation, as Netanyahu pledges to achieve lasting results in Lebanon, while many do not expect Tehran to abandon the protection of one of its most prominent allies in the region, even if this leads to bearing more economic pressure or returning to military operations.
Iranian international affairs analyst Hassan Beheshtipour told Newsweek that Iran does not see itself facing a choice between an economic deal and support for Hezbollah, explaining that a ceasefire in Lebanon constitutes, from Tehran’s point of view, a basic condition for any agreement with the United States.
He added that this position is not only linked to Hezbollah’s ideological support, but also reflects Iran’s understanding of its national security, noting that Tehran considers the threats in West Asia to be interconnected, and that the continuation of the war in Lebanon directly affects its strategic stability.
Hezbollah’s importance to Iran, according to the report, is due to its central role within the so-called “axis of resistance,” by training and supporting allied movements throughout the Middle East. Despite the criticism this alliance faces from the United States and Israel, and from influential Arab countries in the Gulf such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Tehran’s moves indicate that it still believes that the benefits of maintaining it outweigh the economic and political consequences.
Beheshtipour noted that even if the condition to stop the war in Lebanon is exceeded, Iran will evaluate whether enduring a limited conflict there, with the aim of maintaining a minimum level of deterrence against Israel, is still consistent with its national interests, even if doing so delays economic gains.
He said: “From Tehran’s perspective, supporting the strategic partners on the resistance front is not a cost, but rather an integral part of the national security equation.”
For his part, Meir Javidanfar, a researcher specializing in Iranian affairs at Reichmann University, likened Iran’s calculations to the forward defense system adopted by the United States through NATO, considering that Tehran views its allies in the axis of resistance as a defense network that protects its regional interests and ambitions.
He added that Iran’s insistence on including the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon in any agreement with the United States, and its willingness to sacrifice a potential agreement despite economic pressures, reflects the importance to it of protecting its allies.
In contrast, Netanyahu faces increasing challenges, as he has pledged to achieve a lasting victory over Hezbollah, at a time when his influence over Trump may be declining as turmoil in the Middle East continues.
Last week, Trump said that Netanyahu “will do what I want from him” regarding the conflict, in a phrase that observers read as an indication of the decline in the Israeli Prime Minister’s ability to impose his entire agenda on the American administration.
Javaidanfar believed that Netanyahu consumed a large part of his influence during the war in Gaza, through decisions that some considered inconsistent with Israeli and American interests, pointing out that prominent American figures became concerned about his behavior, especially after the attack on Qatar.
According to the report, the divergence in the goals of Iran and Israel in Lebanon may threaten the entire course of the negotiations. Barbara Leaf, who served as US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs in the administration of former President Joe Biden, said that Iran seeks to exploit any potential differences between Trump and Netanyahu to achieve negotiating gains.
She added that Tehran’s effort to include Lebanon in a peace agreement aims to restrict Netanyahu’s movement and push Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon, noting that Iran may demand conditions that Israel is likely to reject, such as complete withdrawal and stopping all attacks.
Liv suggested that Trump would grant Netanyahu an exception related to “self-defense” in any new agreement with Iran, allowing Israel to continue weakening Hezbollah.
For his part, Mick Mulroy, who served as US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs during Trump’s first term, said that Iran wants to end the war in Lebanon as part of any agreement that ends the war between it and the United States.
He added that this should be accompanied by ensuring that Hezbollah does not continue to attack Israel, considering that Iran’s participation in this path is necessary for the success of any agreement.
These data reveal that Lebanon is no longer a side file in the US-Iranian negotiations, but rather has turned into a direct test of Trump’s ability to reconcile Israel’s conditions with Iran’s concerns. Between Netanyahu’s desire to extract permanent arrangements against Hezbollah, and Tehran’s insistence on protecting its regional network of influence, the Lebanese front seems likely to be the node that may determine the fate of any broad agreement, or push the region again towards a new round of escalation.
