An eventful week that concludes with two major developments

Direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, unprecedented since 1983; a precarious ceasefire in South Lebanon; the Strait of Hormuz still at the center of Iranian-American tensions; a summary of an eventful week in the Middle East ending with two crucial developments.

The past week ended this Sunday, April 19, with a double announcement of the highest importance. In a firm tone that contrasts with his traditional statements, President Donald Trump indicated Sunday afternoon (Levant time) that his representatives would travel to Islamabad Monday evening for a final round of talks on Tuesday, during which the Iranian regime would have to endorse a 'very fair and reasonable' agreement proposed by Washington. Failing that, the White House chief affirmed, the US army 'will destroy every power plant and every bridge'.

'Kindness is over,' President Trump declared. 'If they don't accept the deal, it will be an honor for me to do what should have been done by other presidents over the last 47 years. It's time to end the Iranian killing machine.'

Second important announcement closing the week: the Elysée indicated in the afternoon that President Emmanuel Macron would receive Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on Tuesday.

Ahead of these two major developments, Lebanon experienced a week as eventful as the previous ones, but punctuated by a historic event, in every sense of the word: the launch of direct negotiations with Israel, a first since 1983. Certainly, the meeting in Washington on April 14 between the ambassadors of Lebanon, Nada Hamadé Mouawad, and Israel, Yechiel Leiter, under the aegis and in the presence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and also in the presence of the American ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, was planned. The resulting photo, which went viral worldwide, nevertheless had a colossal effect, both on the Lebanese scene and in the capitals concerned.

What emerged from this meeting lays the groundwork for longer-term negotiations. While Marco Rubio stressed the importance of the moment while acknowledging that the process 'will take time,' it was Israel's ambassador to Washington who was the most talkative, assuring that the two countries 'discovered they were on the same side,' speaking of border demarcation and a future of peace. Lebanon's ambassador merely described the meeting as 'constructive,' specifying that she had requested a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon. In the joint communiqué, the United States expressed hope that the talks would continue and lead to a peace agreement.

In Lebanon, the talks provoked diametrically opposed reactions, in line with deep political divisions. Unsurprisingly, Hezbollah called them a 'capitulation,' with its circles saying they preferred Lebanon to 'benefit from Iran's support' within the framework of its own talks with the United States. The sovereignist camp welcomed these talks with Israel, not only with a view to lasting peace but also for the Lebanese state to definitively separate from the Iranian axis, by enshrining Lebanon's right to negotiate its own future.

In this uproar, one voice remained silent, that of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berry, who is also the head of the Amal movement, the other component of the Shiite duo with Hezbollah. In a gesture that many are still trying to decipher, he sent his second-in-command, former minister Ali Hassan Khalil, to Saudi Arabia, in parallel with the Washington meeting.

While this first meeting concluded with assurances of future contacts, no new appointment was officially announced. But this step was expected to cause a snowball effect, as the ceasefire requested by Lebanon to continue the dialogue was to take place two days later.

On Thursday, President Joseph Aoun had a day marked by crucial telephone conversations. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio proposed putting him in direct contact with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Aoun refused, maintaining his position of demanding a ceasefire. This attitude remained unchanged even when the occupant of the White House himself was on the other end of the line. With his usual fervor, Donald Trump announced that he would bring Aoun and Netanyahu together in Washington 'soon'.

Firmness of tone in Baabda

A ten-day ceasefire was to be the result of the contacts of the past week. It came into effect at midnight on Thursday night to Friday. According to information leaked in international media, President Trump reportedly somewhat forced the Israelis' hand to obtain this calm, which he considered necessary on the Lebanese and Iranian fronts.

Although clearly announced by the American president following his phone call with his Lebanese counterpart, the Hezbollah camp was quick to try to claim credit, as a good champion of opportunistic recovery, a propaganda whose stars were cadre Mahmoud Qomati and MP Hassan Fadlallah. The latter even went so far as to say that it was the Iranian ambassador, the very one the Lebanese state considers persona non grata, who announced the ceasefire to him... One more sign of the party's absolute allegiance to Tehran, which prefers to attribute paternity to its patron rather than to the Lebanese government.

On the ground, as usual, Hezbollah proclaimed 'divine victory,' with celebratory gunfire and rockets in the Beirut sky, causing at least two casualties. The familiar scenes of cars returning south on broken roads, Hezbollah flags in hand, were repeated, despite warnings about the fragility and provisional nature of this truce.

Faced with this growing belligerent rhetoric from Hezbollah and its Iranian patron, it was a message addressed to the nation by President Aoun on Friday evening that was to set the record straight. Without including Iran in his thanks, Joseph Aoun assured that he would go wherever necessary to save his country and his people, in a clear allusion to the direct negotiations that would continue, emphasizing that these were neither a sign of weakness nor a surrender. In this speech with a firm tone, he clearly endorsed the separation from the Iranian axis, while reiterating the Lebanese state's determination to extend its sovereignty over the entire country, by negotiating the Israeli withdrawal from the newly (re)conquered territories.

This speech was widely praised by those who were delighted to find the same vein as the president's inauguration speech in January 2025, while others remain circumspect, pointing to the inaction of the Lebanese authorities towards Hezbollah over fifteen months, the direct consequence of which was the opening of a new front against Israel in March 2026.

On Hezbollah's side, the speech definitively sealed the break between the two parties, as vociferated by the inescapable Qomati, who threatened to bring down the government in the streets. But the confrontation is not limited to verbal accusations of betrayal and threats: on Saturday, a French UNIFIL peacekeeper was killed, and three others wounded, by direct fire in South Lebanon. Even if Hezbollah denied any involvement in the incident, French President Emmanuel Macron and UNIFIL itself immediately pointed the finger at them based on elements from the preliminary investigation. The French Minister of the Armed Forces spoke of an 'ambush'.

The other surprise of the week was the 'reappearance' of Hezbollah Secretary General Naïm Qassem, in a recorded speech broadcast on April 13, on the eve of the direct negotiations in Washington, in which he rejected direct contacts with Israel and called them 'submission'. In another message broadcast on April 18, Qassem continued his attacks against the talks, but highlighted his party's openness to 'full cooperation with the Lebanese authorities'. Is this a division of roles within the party or real divergences between a harder line and a more conciliatory one?

In Iran, uncertainties about the truce

On the Iranian front, the week was punctuated by untimely and contradictory statements from the American president and Iranian leaders who continue to blow hot and cold. The mediating countries, led by Pakistan, are working to keep the direct negotiation process alive, which began two weeks earlier.

Now, all eyes are on next week, which should be decisive in the sense that the truce decreed by Washington ends on Wednesday, and a new round of talks is expected to be held in Islamabad. Will it take place, and will the truce be extended in the absence of an agreement? The situation should clarify in the coming days, but the possibility of a renewed conflict is far from ruled out.

At the center of concerns this week was the Strait of Hormuz, sometimes 'open,' sometimes 'closed,' in a saga that continues to weigh on oil prices and the global economy. As part of an ongoing American blockade on Iranian ports, Iran declared the strait open in the wake of the ceasefire in Lebanon, with strong statements on the cause-and-effect relationship between the two events, Tehran wanting to give the impression of reacting to an achievement it attributes to itself.

However, the week ended on a distinctly more negative note, as the Revolutionary Guards resumed targeting merchant ships, justifying this new 'closure' of the strait in communiqués published via Iranian state media by the American refusal to end the blockade.