Lebanon enters talks with Israel but with no cards to play
Lebanon enters talks with Israel but with no cards to play
Lebanon, once again caught in conflict, brought me back to a conversation with President Joseph Aoun at the Baabda Palace last August. The modernist building sat atop a hill, offering a view of Beirut. Aoun, a former military leader, assumed office after a brutal war between Israel and Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia and political party backed by Iran. At that time, Hezbollah had been weakened and isolated, and Aoun pledged to dismantle its arsenal. The issue of the group’s weapons had long fractured the nation, but Aoun seemed confident in his ability to resolve it. “He once described himself as an optimist,” he said.
A fragile ceasefire had ended the Israel-Hezbollah war in November 2024, yet Israel continued attacking targets linked to the group. The agreement was short-lived, as near-daily strikes persisted. In some regions, the conflict never truly ceased. Even from my home in east Beirut, I could hear the hum of Israeli drones patrolling above. For Hezbollah’s allies, the group represents the last line of defense against Israeli aggression. Critics, however, accuse it of prioritizing Iranian interests, thrusting Lebanon into unwanted wars.
After Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s assassination during the US-Israeli strike on Tehran in February, Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel. The group framed this as retaliation for the leader’s death and the ongoing attacks during the ceasefire. Israel responded with air strikes and a new ground invasion of southern Lebanon. President Aoun, aiming to halt the violence, proposed direct talks with Israel—a bold move for two nations that do not recognize each other. Israel delayed until last week, when the US brokered a ceasefire with Iran, following a day of air strikes that killed over 300 people in Lebanon.
Hezbollah, or “Party of God” in Arabic, emerged in the 1980s during Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. The group has since been funded, trained, and armed by Iran, with Israel’s destruction as one of its stated goals. The Taif Agreement of 1989 ended Lebanon’s civil war, mandating the disarmament of all militias and establishing a power-sharing framework among its diverse sects. Yet Hezbollah defied this, framing itself as a resistance force against Israeli occupation. When Israel withdrew its troops in 2000 after an 18-year presence, territorial disputes lingered. UN Resolution 1701, passed in 2006 to end the war, called for Hezbollah’s disarmament, but this has never been fully realized.
Despite being labeled a terrorist organization by the UK and the US, Hezbollah holds significant influence in Lebanon’s political and social spheres. It operates as a parliamentary party and runs essential services in areas where the state has faltered. This dual role has cemented its status as the country’s most powerful entity. Aoun’s recent administration has championed a policy of “state monopoly on arms,” insisting that Hezbollah’s weapons must be removed from southern Lebanon. The group, however, has rejected a full nationwide disarmament, leaving Aoun with few options. “We can’t let the country descend into another civil war,” he warned during our August meeting. With Hezbollah’s refusal to negotiate and Israeli strikes ongoing, the path to lasting peace remains uncertain.
The State of Disarmament
Under the 2024 ceasefire deal, Hezbollah agreed to withdraw its fighters and weapons from southern Lebanon, a region it had controlled for decades. However, the group still maintains a strong presence in Dahieh, Beirut’s southern suburbs, and the eastern Bekaa Valley, where parts of its arsenal are stored. Aoun’s challenge lies in enforcing disarmament without Hezbollah’s cooperation, a task that could reignite violence. The upcoming meeting between ambassadors in Washington aims to address this, but its success hinges on whether both sides can find common ground in a nation deeply divided by its own institutions.
