Washington: a tripartite statement of major historical significance

The fourth round of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations held Tuesday and Wednesday in Washington ended with a 'first': the publication, in the night from Wednesday to Thursday (Levant time) of a joint American-Lebanese-Israeli statement whose content itself constitutes another 'first'.

Alongside the establishment of a ceasefire conditioned on the Hezbollah halting its fire against Israel and the creation of 'pilot zones' in the South under the sole control of the Lebanese army, the document emphasizes—and this is where the precedent lies—that 'the future of relations between Israel and Lebanon must be decided by the two sovereign governments'.

The three signatory countries further emphasize that they reject 'any attempt by a state or non-state actor to hold Lebanon hostage.' The allusion to the Iranian regime and Hezbollah will not escape anyone's notice.

And in a move whose historical significance appears undeniable, the signatory countries further add that 'Israel and Lebanon reaffirm that they have no hostile intentions toward one another and they commit to pursuing direct negotiations to build confidence'.

Clearly, the statement notes that Iran is kept out of the current process initiated by Lebanon and Israel, under American auspices. Furthermore, this is the first time that Lebanon and Israel have affirmed in a joint statement that they have 'no hostile intentions toward one another.' The immediate consequence of the publication of this document: AFP reported late in the day that Hezbollah informed Lebanese authorities that it rejects the ceasefire with Israel.

A position that clearly echoes a hostile reaction from the Iranian regime, which spares no effort to control the Lebanese landscape.

Planned measures

At the level of resolutions taken late Wednesday evening, the tripartite statement mentions the implementation of a ceasefire, conditional on Hezbollah stopping its attacks.

The novelty of this text is the creation of pilot zones that will be under the sole control of the Lebanese army in the south.

The statement emphasizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both countries and speaks of the dismantling of non-state armed groups, another jab at Hezbollah.

The words 'comprehensive peace and sovereignty agreement' are explicitly mentioned. The two parties agreed on a new round of negotiations on June 22, with a view to reaching a 'comprehensive agreement'.

This fourth round of negotiations was unprecedented in substance and form, due to practical measures aimed at demilitarizing Hezbollah on the one hand, and the reading of a joint statement on the other. The three Lebanese, Israeli, and American parties jointly condemned Iranian attacks against Gulf countries. In other words, both Hezbollah and Iran find themselves marginalized.

During these negotiations, Israel insisted on the security of its territory and the necessity of disarming Hezbollah once and for all, while Lebanon called for respect of internationally recognized borders, which means a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied Lebanese territory.

The proximity of the next round testifies to the willingness for rapid progress between the two parties. The ceasefire, however, is not an absolute certainty given that several ceasefires had been decreed before this without results.

Fighting on the ground in the south continues, but the capital and its suburbs remain spared for now.

Following the meeting, Lebanon's ambassador Nada Hamadé Mouawad assured that 'this is a historic moment,' and that the achievements of these negotiations are due to 'the sole will of the sovereign Lebanese state'.

Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, in a statement on the sidelines of the meeting, expressed conviction that "Hezbollah will have to understand that all this madness is over" and that the two states are gradually reaching an agreement.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated that "Hezbollah is the enemy of both parties."

According to MTV reports from Baabda, negotiations were extremely difficult, and the head of the Lebanese delegation, Simon Karam, had to suspend talks in order to include a clause on a total ceasefire in Lebanon.

Following an intervention by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, discussions resumed and yielded the results we now know.

In an initial reaction to the negotiations, addressing journalists directly, Republic President Joseph Aoun stated that the ceasefire "could be implemented within 24 hours following its final approval."

A first sign came with a withdrawal of Israeli forces from the village of Debbin, Marjeyoun, and their replacement by the Lebanese army.

Aoun said he was awaiting responses from all parties and their commitment to making this truce succeed. He also informed his interlocutors that Lebanon proposed a first pilot zone in two strategic villages in the Nabatiyeh region, Zawtar el-Sharqiya and Zawtar el-Gharbiya.

Hezbollah's Response

Clearly, these advances are not welcome to everyone in Israel and Lebanon alike.

In Tel Aviv, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir called the ceasefire with Lebanon a "grave mistake."

Defense Minister Israel Katz, for his part, assured that his country "will maintain freedom of movement in Lebanon," particularly in case of a Hezbollah attack.

On the Iranian axis side, Esmaïl Qaani, commander of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards, reiterated his country's support for "resistance in Lebanon," arguing that a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces to the point before this latest conflict is the least that should happen.

Perhaps Mr. Qaani forgets that the Israeli army was already occupying five points on Lebanese territory before March 2... even as the Lebanese state is negotiating for a total withdrawal from the territory.

As expected, the reaction of Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem, in a speech Thursday, to this Lebanese-Israeli-American joint statement was particularly fierce. He described the ceasefire achieved by the Lebanese state as "fictitious," and direct negotiations as "pointless and humiliating." "If the objective of any agreement is to disarm Hezbollah, that means depriving Lebanon of all its cards of strength," he declared, adding that "this statement is a surrender and a call for internal discord."

Noting that this text calls on Hezbollah to cease hostilities as a priority, Qassem declared that his movement "is only concerned with a total ceasefire and a complete Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territories."

The vehemence of this reaction is expected, given that the joint statement completely marginalizes the role of Hezbollah and Iran, even as the course of negotiations appears inevitable.

How will Hezbollah react on the ground? In any case, as U.S. President Donald Trump himself said Thursday, efforts continue to separate the Iranian and Lebanese aspects.

On the ground, fighting has not stopped. While it had given the impression the day before of avoiding strikes on northern Israel, Hezbollah apparently sent drones to the region again, even though it did not claim responsibility for attacks on Israel.

Sirens sounded in northern Israel shortly after Qassem's speech, according to the Israeli military. It also continued its strikes in various regions of the south and issued a new call for the evacuation of all residents south of Zahrani (Sidon), well north of the Litani, the former demarcation line.

Another serious development in the south: the death of a Blue Helmet in Marjeyoun, a UNIFIL soldier of Serbian nationality, following a missile strike on the organization's headquarters. UNIFIL condemned it as a 'deliberate attack' on its soldiers and called for an investigation to determine responsibilities.

Several Blue Helmets have been killed and wounded during this conflict, some by Israeli fire and others by Hezbollah, according to the organization's own statements.

Also note the visit to Lebanon by French envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian, who met with several Lebanese figures on Thursday. French President Emmanuel Macron expressed hope that ongoing negotiations (in which France does not play a role) will lead to an effective ceasefire, and that his country 'remains available' according to AFP.

The U.S. Congress

On the U.S.-Iran front, the most dramatic development on June 4th is the resolution passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in favor of an immediate halt to the war in Iran, launched by U.S. President Donald Trump since February 28th.

A decision made possible by 4 Republican representatives joining the Democratic bloc, but which is merely symbolic in scope.

Congress essentially reproaches Trump for engaging in a war without a clear vision and without considering American interests.

Under pressure (both internal and external, due to renewed attacks on Gulf countries, particularly Kuwait on Wednesday), Trump believed negotiations could be concluded this weekend. He reiterated that no agreement could be reached without Iran's complete delivery of enriched uranium to the United States.

For his part, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issued a statement accusing the United States and Israel of attempting to sow discord, asserting that 'the enemy suffered a crushing defeat' in this conflict with his country.

This inflammatory statement comes even as the U.S. President recently expressed his desire to meet with him, and continues to declare that Iran wants a deal and that negotiations have made significant progress.

This type of Iranian denial has become routine whenever Donald Trump speaks.

Finally, note a renewed surge in tensions in the Gaza Strip, where Israeli forces conducted intense bombing raids Wednesday night into Thursday on apartments, killing an entire family among others.