Listen to the article
Does the American-French “plan” to address the situation in southern Lebanon include the implementation of Resolution 1701 along with its overall components? And is it aimed at facilitating a regional settlement?
According to a Western diplomat, the debate over a post-Gaza phase is already underway. This is especially relevant as the Biden administration faces growing challenges in managing pressures from both Congress and the international community. The resulting divergence between Washington and Tel Aviv was publicly emphasized when Congress voted against Israel in response to the developments in Gaza.
Washington seeks to bring an end to the Gaza conflict to mitigate its impact on the presidential campaign. For this to happen, the US is working towards an agreement in southern Lebanon through the implementation of Resolution 1701. Washington’s goal is to curtail Iran’s influence by leveraging Hezbollah’s role in its regional agenda. As such, the US wants to stop Iran from expanding the theater of conflict and opening a new front, which could potentially lead to a regional war.
At a time when Washington and Paris are keen to adhere to the agreement plan to address the situation in southern Lebanon—away from media speculation to prevent its derailment—Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced, “Israel is open to the option of reaching an agreement with the Iran-backed Hezbollah, provided that the agreement include the establishment of a secure zone along the border to provide suitable guarantees for the residents of the settlements.” Meanwhile, Israeli War Cabinet Minister Benny Gantz stated that “Israel seeks to alter the current situation on the border with Lebanon.” During his recent meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Tel Aviv, Gantz underscored “the need to exert pressure on the Lebanese government to halt Hezbollah attacks and keep them far from the borders.” As such, it was reported that Israel conveyed its conditions regarding the situation in southern Lebanon to international mediators, especially the Americans and the French. They have indicated that “an agreement may be reached soon if the Shiite movement complies with the provisions of Resolution 1701.”
In the latest updates, it was disclosed that Israel is open to the idea of Hezbollah maintaining specific unarmed observation posts. This would be contingent upon the Lebanese army’s extended presence along the entire border, working in collaboration with French forces in border control operations. The aim is to restrict the presence of arms south of the Litani River solely to the hands of the Lebanese army while simultaneously removing unauthorized military equipment, including that of Hezbollah and Palestinian factions, from the international zone governed by Resolution 1701. In return, Washington guarantees that Israel will refrain from any aggression against the South.
To better expedite this plan of action, the potential agreement recommends the deployment of US forces along the Israeli border, ensuring Israel’s commitment to the agreement in question. According to information from US political sources, there is a prospect of resolving the dispute over 13 contested border points between Lebanon and Israel.
Additionally, international forces would be stationed in the Shebaa Farms following Israel’s withdrawal, pending a determination of its status between Lebanon and Syria. Israel is also expected to withdraw from the region of Ghajar. Information from Israeli sources indicates that mediators have successfully addressed several Israeli positions related to the borders, and a swift resolution is expected.
In this context, the mediators’ mission to enforce Resolution 1701 aligns with low-key negotiations taking place in Qatar concerning the Gaza war and its resolution. These negotiations follow a plan outlined by Ambassador David Satterfield (the US Special Envoy for Middle East Humanitarian Issues) and involve key stakeholders, including Iran indirectly. It has become quite evident that Iran is leveraging Hezbollah’s influence to maintain tensions in southern Lebanon, with the ultimate objective of resuming negotiations with the US (through the use of pressure), which have been on hold since the outbreak of the Gaza war.
Against this backdrop, diplomatic sources point out that the Houthi escalation in the Arabian Gulf and its threat to maritime navigation is a pressure tool that Iran is using on Washington. The negotiations led by Satterfield in Qatar to end the war for humanitarian reasons face various obstacles, the main one being the Israeli army’s steadfast refusal to “compromise on what it views as an existential war through which the army wants to uphold its reputation.”
In light of recent developments, it has become clear that Washington is determined to bring an end to the regional war and is actively working to prevent its further escalation, with a specific focus on resolving the ongoing conflict in Gaza. On the flipside, Iran is maintaining its commitment to avoiding conflict while emphasizing its will to acknowledge Palestinian rights as well as insisting on a recognition of its regional role and influence. In pursuit of these goals, the Islamic Republic of Iran strategically deploys its military proxies as a means of exerting pressure on Washington, whether in Yemen, the Arabian Gulf, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or Palestine, all as part of its overarching agenda.
Western diplomatic sources have confirmed that progress is being made in the negotiations (in Qatar), both in terms of ending the war in Gaza and in implementing Resolution 1701. This statement was made after it became somewhat evident that so far, none of the parties involved was able to conclusively resolve the Gaza conflict.
Meanwhile, active international and Arab initiatives are pushing for a comprehensive settlement rooted in Israel’s acknowledgment of the creation of an independent Palestinian state. This requires a shift in the Israeli government’s position, in line with the overhaul of the Palestinian Authority by integrating all factions and organizations. The ultimate goal is for the Palestinian Authority to become the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and one able to negotiate on their behalf.
The developments in the region are pushing towards speeding up the resolution of the crisis in Lebanon. The recent parliamentary decision to extend the army commander’s term for another year might expedite the election of a president. The latter’s crucial role, among others, would be to sign the maritime demarcation agreement, settle the border dispute and engage in regional negotiations towards a new Middle East.
In this context, a former minister said that addressing the issue of the army commander so close to the end of his term (roughly one month) sets the presidential deadline and the path to a solution for the beginning of the new year. In turn, this might pave the way towards dealing with the challenges that will occur in the upcoming phase.
