Among the few and rare things that the Lebanese, with their various factions and political leaders, agree on is one thing, and it may be an orphan, which is that the truce existing today in the south is nothing but a gray space of time, difficult to include in the category of stability, and difficult to classify within the context of open war. Quite simply, and as more than one security authority describes it, it is a truce without guarantees, based on a delicate balance between a fire burning under the ashes and political and military calculations that prevent its comprehensive explosion, even for a while, while waiting for what is being “cooked” in the international kitchens regarding the results that the secret negotiations between Washington and Tehran can achieve that are believed to ultimately be in the interest of permanent stability in the region. However, Israel’s targeting of the commander of the “Radwan” unit in the southern suburb of Beirut, in the first dangerous indicator after Tel Aviv pledged to Washington to stop its bombing of Beirut, may reshuffle the field cards again.
Since the announcement of the extension of the ceasefire, the Lebanese, especially the people of the border villages, have not felt that anything has actually changed on the ground. The bombing has not stopped completely, the threats have not subsided, and the destruction continues at a varying pace, which makes talk of “calm” closer to a media description than a tangible field reality.
In military circles, this truce does not express a real desire on the part of the parties to end the confrontation, as much as it reflects a mutual need to catch a breath, rearrange the cards, and improve the conditions of the undeclared negotiation. Israel, which has not achieved all of its declared goals, is still seeking to impose new equations on the ground, while Hezbollah is dealing with the current stage as part of a long-term battle that requires careful management of escalation without sliding into a comprehensive confrontation.
However, what raises concern, according to follow-up sources, is that this relative “break” may in essence be a prelude to a more dangerous round, especially if diplomatic paths falter or fail to produce viable understandings. Previous experiences in Lebanon, as in the region, have proven that temporary truces are often a prelude to greater escalation, when the causes of the explosion accumulate without signs of radical solutions looming on the horizon of the crisis.
In this context, the current truce cannot be separated from the broader regional scene, as several issues intersect, from Gaza to Iran, through American pressure and attempts to control the pace of the confrontation with Israel. Lebanon finds itself, once again, part of a game of nations larger than its limited capabilities, influenced by it more than it is influenced by it, which makes its fate closely linked to the outcomes of these understandings, if they are established on a platform of safety or confrontations. Potential and, according to observers, leading to a broader and more dangerous escalation than before.
Internally, dealing with this truce still reflects a clear division in vision. There are those who see it as an opportunity that must be exploited to push for a settlement that will put an end to the war and open the door to reconstruction, while others consider it merely a passing stop in the path of a long conflict that cannot be resolved except by changing the balance of power. Between these two logics, the official Lebanese decision remains governed by complex calculations, combining external pressures and internal balances.
What increases the fragility of this truce is the absence of any clear mechanism to ensure its continuity or to monitor its violations. Unwritten agreements, or those administered through indirect channels, remain subject to interpretation and interpretation, which opens the door for each party to read the facts in a way that serves its interests. This explains the continued tension, despite talk of a ceasefire.
In light of this reality, the questions seem greater than the answers: Are we facing an actual truce that paves the way for a settlement, or is we facing a warrior’s rest that hides preparations for a new round? Does Lebanon have the luxury of waiting, or will the cost of wasted time be high for a country suffering from unprecedented crises?
The fragile truce that the south is experiencing today may be necessary to stop the immediate bleeding, but it is not sufficient to make peace. Crises that cannot be resolved at their root always return in more violent forms. Lebanon, which has repeatedly experienced this type of “temporary calm,” realizes today, more than ever, that true stability is not built on a fragile truce, but rather on solid settlements, which are still out of reach until now, unless something unexpected happens on the Washington-Tehran line.
