U.S. and Iranian officials on Friday said an understanding to conclude the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is close. Whatever shape a deal takes, its greatest vulnerability is already clear: the situation in Lebanon.
Though American forces are not fighting in Lebanon, the U.S. is implicated in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militia.
Hezbollah attacked Israel soon after the war with Iran began, and Israel has since bombed and invaded the country, spurring the displacement of more than 1 million Lebanese people. As Israel’s military and diplomatic patron, the U.S. is the only player that could halt Tel Aviv’s offensive.
The Trump administration has cast itself as a mediator between Israel and Hezbollah, and has been working with the Lebanese government. Iran, meanwhile, has ramped up its demand that any peace agreement must include Lebanon. Tehran struck Israel on Sunday following an Israeli bombing near the Lebanese capital of Beirut.
Trending
U.S. and Israeli officials have sought to keep discussions about Iran and Lebanon separate, and on Friday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel would not leave Lebanese territory.
For President Donald Trump to clinch an agreement with Iran, however, Washington would likely need to shift its Lebanese policy. Doing so would require the administration to pivot from its near-unconditional support for Israel’s strikes in Lebanon — and deal with unpredictable backlash from Tel Aviv and its allies in the U.S.
When NOTUS asked a senior Middle Eastern official on Thursday night if the U.S. was willing to pressure Israel for restraint in Lebanon, the official responded: “They have to. Otherwise the deal will collapse.” On a Friday afternoon call with reporters, a senior U.S. official said: “The broad regional peace agreement is broad … it includes Lebanon.”
Tehran has demands for Lebanon beyond halting Israeli attacks, including a significant withdrawal of Israeli forces, said a European official. (The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive talks.)
Negotiations are unlikely to give Iran all that it seeks, the European official continued, but it has demonstrated “the Lebanon requirement is a serious one.”
Further complicating matters, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a tough reelection campaign and many Israelis loathe the idea of compromising with Hezbollah. Lebanese authorities are also up against public skepticism of negotiations with Israel, which has repeatedly assailed and occupied its northern neighbor, as well as Hezbollah’s deep support base.
Identifying changes in Lebanon that would be acceptable to Iran, to the U.S., and to Israel will be a delicate process. Both officials emphasized the precarity of a U.S.-Iran accord in any case, even if a “memorandum of understanding” is signed soon.
“Hawks will now do their best to sabotage the deal … they might succeed,” the Middle Eastern official said.
American officials who are more wary of Israel — such as Vice President JD Vance — would more likely be open to a serious truce and defying Netanyahu’s preferences in Lebanon, said the European official, who predicted a potential “struggle” over how to handle the matter. But aides to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who are known for their hard-line stance against Iran and its associates, dominate the discussions.
So far, U.S. officials have simultaneously indicated some softening toward Hezbollah and concern over Israeli conduct in Lebanon, while suggesting they are getting tougher with Beirut.
Public statements describing U.S.-mediated talks between Israel and Lebanon last week, for instance, did not emphasize the American and Israeli demand for fully disarming the Iran-backed militia, the European source said.
Meanwhile, Trump is trying to slash U.S. aid for the Lebanese military, which Iran hawks have long criticized for not being more assertive against Hezbollah. Even conservatives have questioned that move, saying it undermines Lebanese authorities and offers an opportunity for Hezbollah.
With no sign yet of Washington implementing a lever against Israel — such as conditions on its behavior or real threats of reduced support — the assault on Lebanon by Netanyahu will likely continue.
Trump’s critics say he has not shown a commitment to progress for Lebanon.
“The Trump administration, who says that they’re working with the Lebanese government, it’s obvious to me they don’t care about this brutality,” said Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who recently forced a House of Representatives vote on the U.S. role in Lebanon..
Tlaib cited a recent Israeli strike that killed three Lebanese troops, including a general. She said she plans to force another vote by the end of June or early July, based on concerns the U.S. is sharing information about Lebanon with Israel and enabling “ethnic cleansing.”
A U.S. official tracking Lebanon noted that in the last round of U.S.-organized talks, the Trump administration did not require Israel to agree to a mechanism for phasing out a military drawdown alongside Hezbollah, instead directing Lebanese counterparts to nudge the militia to withdraw some of its personnel.
“The U.S. is able to and does pressure Lebanon [but] the U.S. does not exert the same persuasive and compromising pressure on Israel,” the U.S. official said, comparing the trajectory to the Biden-era policy of first trying to prevent and then embracing a devastating Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2024.
The Trump administration’s pattern of negotiating brief truces in Lebanon has repeatedly allowed for the resumption of Israeli strikes without clear consequences.
In the call with reporters on Friday, the senior Trump administration official put the onus for reducing tensions in Lebanon on Tehran: “We expect the Iranians to be a real actor for peace, and if they are, then of course they’re going to get a lot of benefit out of the bargain.”
Author
Contributor
