Lebanon enters talks with Israel but with no cards to play

Lebanon enters talks with Israel but with no cards to play

Lebanon once more finds itself in the throes of conflict, a reality that brought back memories of a meeting I had with President Joseph Aoun at Baabda Palace in late August. This modernist structure perched atop a hill overlooking Beirut housed a former military leader who had assumed office after a brutal war between Israel and Hezbollah, a Shia militia and political entity backed by Iran. At that time, Hezbollah had been weakened and isolated, and Aoun pledged to dismantle its arsenal. Yet, the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons remains a deep rift in the nation, one he believed he could bridge with his unwavering optimism.

“I was born an optimist,” he remarked during our conversation.

A fragile truce had been established in November 2024, ending the Israel-Hezbollah war, but Israel persisted with daily strikes targeting individuals and groups associated with Hezbollah. In certain regions, the fighting never ceased, and from my residence in east Beirut, I could occasionally detect the hum of Israeli drones above. For Hezbollah’s allies, the group symbolizes resistance against Israeli expansion, while critics accuse it of prioritizing Iranian interests over Lebanon’s stability.

The ideological divide surrounding Hezbollah’s role has long shaped Lebanon’s political landscape. Founded in the 1980s during Israel’s occupation of the country, the group emerged as a powerful force, sustained by Iranian funding, training, and arms. Its goal of dismantling Israel remains central to its identity. The Taif Agreement of 1989, which concluded the civil war, required militias to surrender weapons and established a power-sharing framework. However, Hezbollah defied these terms, framing itself as a guardian against Israeli aggression rather than a military entity.

Israel withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon in 2000 after an 18-year occupation, but territorial disputes lingered. The UN’s Resolution 1701, enacted in 2006 to end the war and mandate Hezbollah’s disarmament, has not been fully realized. Despite being labeled a terrorist organization by the UK and the US, Hezbollah holds significant sway in Lebanon’s governance and society, operating schools and hospitals in areas where the state’s presence is weak.

President Aoun’s administration champions a policy of state control over arms, insisting on maintaining authority over weapons. Under the 2024 ceasefire agreement, Hezbollah had committed to relocating its fighters and arms from southern Lebanon, a region it had dominated for decades. Yet, its secretary-general, Naim Qassem, has refused to discuss nationwide disarmament. Aoun warns that unilateral action to remove Hezbollah’s weapons could ignite renewed violence. “We can’t let the country descend into another civil war,” he cautioned during our August meeting.

With Israel’s recent air strikes killing over 300 Lebanese in a single day, the US brokered a ceasefire with Iran, prompting Israel to reengage. Amid this backdrop, ambassadors from both nations are set to meet in Washington later Tuesday, aiming to discuss a truce. But without decisive influence over Hezbollah, the Lebanese government’s ability to broker peace remains uncertain. The question lingers: can a fragile agreement halt the bloodshed, or will Lebanon’s divisions persist?