AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Lebanon and the Zionist regime, after five rounds of negotiations mediated by the United States in Washington, signed a preliminary agreement, the main focus of which, according to published provisions, is the disarmament of Hezbollah, the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south, the initiation of direct negotiations between the two sides, and the implementation of a security mechanism under direct U.S. supervision.
According to this agreement, Lebanon and Israel recognize each other as sovereign states and will pursue their disputes through direct negotiations with U.S. support. The Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibility for the southern regions, and the reconstruction of war-torn areas and the return of residents are conditional upon the disarmament of armed groups and the consolidation of state sovereignty.
An Agreement Focused on Disarming Hezbollah and Direct U.S. Supervision
In response, the Zionist regime has announced that it will maintain its military presence in the "security zone" inside Lebanese territory until Hezbollah is fully disarmed. Benjamin Netanyahu described this agreement as a "heavy blow to Iran" and announced the implementation of a pilot plan to disarm Hezbollah and gradually transfer control of these areas to the Lebanese army.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials also announced that American officers will directly supervise the implementation of the agreement and the disarmament process, and that Israel will maintain its military freedom of action in these areas. In response, Joseph Aoun, the President of Lebanon, described this agreement as the first step toward restoring full state sovereignty over all Lebanese territory and initiating the reconstruction process.
Hezbollah's Opposition and Internal Protests
Hezbollah and a significant portion of Lebanon's political currents assessed this agreement as a move to weaken the resistance. Hassan Fadlallah, a member of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc, called this agreement "unilateral and free concession" to Israel and warned that its implementation could lead to internal divisions and confrontation between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah.
Simultaneously, Beirut witnessed popular protests against this agreement, which ended with the intervention of the Lebanese army. Some analysts also believe that without Hezbollah's consent, the practical implementation of this agreement is not possible, and entrusting control of the southern regions to the Lebanese army could set the stage for a new internal conflict. In their view, the main objective of this agreement, beyond achieving lasting peace, is to contain Hezbollah, reduce Iran's influence, and secure Israel's security priorities.
From Southern Lebanon to the Strait of Hormuz
Simultaneously with these developments, the course of U.S. actions in the region has taken on new dimensions. According to this assessment, Washington, with Israel's accompaniment and the implementation of the "good cop, bad cop" scenario, has used the Lebanon agreement as the first step to change the regional balance and limit Iran's role.
By handing over control of southern Lebanon to the Lebanese government and establishing a mechanism to disarm Hezbollah, one of Iran's most important regional leverage points has been targeted, and the possibility of raising demands such as a ceasefire and Israel's withdrawal in any potential agreement with the United States has been effectively weakened.
In continuation of this process, the U.S. military response following the IRGC's action in seizing a violator vessel in the Strait of Hormuz is also assessed as another sign of Washington's deviation from its commitments. At the same time, the United States continues to emphasize its previous conditions, including the complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability, Tehran's end of support for the axis of resistance, and limiting Iran's role in the Strait of Hormuz.
An Agreement Beyond Lebanon
The sum of these developments indicates that the Lebanon-Israel agreement is not merely a bilateral agreement, but rather part of a broader strategy to change the balance of power in the region, weaken the axis of resistance, and increase pressure on Iran; a process that, from the perspective of this narrative, has effectively invalidated the agreement with Iran before reaching the implementation stage, and has ushered in a new chapter of political and security confrontation between Tehran, Washington, and Tel Aviv.
**************
End/ 345E
