Lebanon’s Political Divide Deepens

Tuesday, April 28 in Lebanon was still shaped by the starkly opposing speeches delivered a day earlier by President Joseph Aoun on the one hand, and Hezbollah secretary-general Naïm Qassem on the other. The former’s address was, in effect, a response to the latter. The president argued that the real “treason” of which he has been accused by the pro-Iranian camp since the launch of direct negotiations with Israel – aimed at ending the war triggered by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon – should instead be attributed to those driving the country into a spiral of destruction and violence.

Unsurprisingly, the unprecedented response of a sitting president to the leader of a militia – one that, until the end of 2024, maintained a firm grip on the Lebanese state – has divided the country along its familiar political fault lines.

Joseph Aoun continues to draw the ire of Hezbollah supporters on social media, as well as criticism from figures such as MP Ali Ammar, who accused him of “selling the country to the Zionists.” Underscoring the group’s stance, a Hezbollah official, quoted by the Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera on Monday evening, said the group was prepared to return to suicide attacks against the Israeli army.

At the same time, the president is receiving messages of support not only from those supportive of his approach, but also through the positions taken by several political figures, including former president Michel Sleimane and Beirut MP Fouad Makhzoumi. As a result, Hezbollah, appears increasingly isolated on the domestic stage.

Internationally, attention has focused on remarks by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who emphasized what he described as the “unprecedented” framework of the Lebanon–Israel ceasefire, given that the two countries are “not in a state of war.” He argued that Hezbollah is not only at war with Israel, but also with the Lebanese state itself. He added that both countries agree on the role of an army that could disarm Hezbollah, while noting that the Israeli military has the right to intervene where the Lebanese authorities are unable to act.

The US official also insisted that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon, a point later echoed on Tuesday by his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Saar.

While the American official appears to support the Lebanese authorities in their standoff with Hezbollah, his remarks also reflect – and in some ways amplify – the deepening divisions within Lebanon that have now come into the open. The country is undoubtedly entering a delicate phase in its history, as political polarization hardens into open hostility amid a wider regional war. How far this trajectory will go remains an open question.

Trump Reportedly Refused Expansion of Operations in Lebanon

Meanwhile, the situation on the ground in southern Lebanon remains highly volatile. Israel has acknowledged casualties, while Hezbollah continues its operations without disclosing its own losses. The ceasefire appears to apply only to areas outside the south. In a serious development on Tuesday, the Israeli army called for the evacuation of several villages in Bint Jbeil that had previously remained outside the so-called “yellow line.”

Israeli threats against Hezbollah have continued, including remarks the previous day by Defense Minister Israel Katz, who warned that statements by Naïm Qassem could “burn” Lebanon as a whole. Such rhetoric has fueled fears of a further widening of the conflict to other parts of the country.

However, this may not reflect the full reality on the ground. According to a report by Israeli Channel 12, widely picked up by local media, US President Donald Trump reportedly rejected an expansion of Israeli operations in Lebanon during a phone call with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, urging restraint. He also reportedly asked him not to jeopardize the ceasefire and, by extension, the ongoing negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. The account, if confirmed, would suggest once again that the US president, aware of Lebanon’s fragile balance, remains keen to secure a swift diplomatic breakthrough. Will the Israelis adhere to this near-American red line, or will escalation on the ground – which could also serve Hezbollah’s interests – once again be used as a pretext to disregard it?

The Iranian Proposal Under Review

On the US-Iran negotiation front, the main development over the past two days has been the Iranian proposal that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, during visits to Moscow after stops in Oman and Pakistan, delivered to US authorities. According to The Wall Street Journal, citing officials familiar with the matter, the proposal is “aimed at breaking the deadlock in the talks.” It outlines “a three-stage peace plan beginning with an end to what it describes as the Israeli-American war on Iran, accompanied by guarantees that strikes will not resume. Iranian authorities would then work with mediators on resolving the issue of closing the Strait of Hormuz, as part of a broader agreement on the matter.”

Still according to the newspaper, the Iranians suggest that negotiations on the nuclear file and on the financing of Tehran’s regional armed groups would only resume after an agreement is reached on ending hostilities and on the Strait of Hormuz – an area Tehran continues to insist it must control. It is also noteworthy that this proposal was reportedly delivered to the Americans while Araghchi was in Russia, where he was received by President Vladimir Putin, and as “he placed responsibility for the failure of previous rounds of negotiations” on the United States, insisting that the Iranian system had demonstrated its “strength.” This comes as internal Iranian divisions continue to resurface through leaks to the media.

Later on Tuesday (overnight in the United States), reports also carried by The Wall Street Journalindicated Donald Trump’s “discontent” with the Iranian proposals.

According to sources cited by the newspaper, “the US president has so far rejected them,” while stressing that “negotiations are continuing.” Trump, the sources added, “does not rule out resuming strikes against Iran if he judges that the talks are not being taken seriously by the Iranian side.” “We will present a counter-proposal in the coming days,” the same sources said.

The same tone was echoed by The New York Times, which added that the US president believes the Iranian proposal fails to reflect the current balance of power and contains no major concessions – particularly on the nuclear issue, which remains “essential” for Washington.

Will US-Iran negotiations continue at this slow pace, as the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues to weigh on the global economy and energy prices? Or are we instead witnessing the prelude to a renewed escalation? In both scenarios, Gulf countries remain on edge, with Qatar warning on Tuesday against what it described as a simmering, low-intensity conflict.