As the prospect of a US-Iran agreement to end their conflict grows more likely, the situation in Lebanon has become increasingly murky. The 45-day ceasefire framework between Israel and Lebanon — brokered in late 2024 — now hangs in the balance as military operations intensify across the south and the Bekaa Valley. On the ground, the truce has been reduced to little more than ink on paper: neither Israel nor Hezbollah appears to have any intention of honoring it.
Iranian negotiators are meanwhile seeking to signal to their American counterparts that Lebanon remains firmly within Tehran's sphere of influence — and that every military action Hezbollah carries out in southern Lebanon is synchronized with Iranian directives. The message is twofold: first, that direct negotiations between the Lebanese government and Israel are meaningless without Iranian approval, and that Hezbollah stands ready to torpedo them; second, that there will be no cessation of hostilities in the south unless Iran secures a full return on the negotiating table. This dynamic explains the ongoing tug-of-war between Iran and the United States over Lebanon.
The battlefield realities in southern Lebanon suggest that Iran's demand — that any agreement include a halt to fighting on all fronts, Lebanon included — is falling on deaf ears in Washington. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has issued orders to the Israeli army to crush Hezbollah.
Intensifying Pressure on Hezbollah
Information emerging from Washington indicates that Prime Minister Netanyahu stressed, in his most recent call with US President Donald Trump, the need to apply greater pressure on Hezbollah. The group, he argued, had exploited the constraints Washington had imposed on Israel in Lebanon — particularly regarding drone operations, which have claimed a considerable number of Israeli soldiers. Netanyahu has been firm in insisting that the Lebanon front be kept separate from the broader confrontation with Iran, and that any deal reached between Washington and Tehran must not extend to Lebanon.
Sources with knowledge of discussions involving the US State Department indicate that Prime Minister Netanyahu is operating under significant domestic pressure — particularly from military commanders demanding a harsh response to Hezbollah's drone campaign and strikes deeper into Lebanese territory, specifically Beirut's southern suburbs. While he is not fully convinced that an all-out escalation serves Israel's interests — mindful that it could derail the ongoing negotiations in Washington — remaining confined to a war of attrition with Hezbollah exposes Israeli forces to a slow bleed. President Trump understood this calculus and has partially lifted the constraints on Israeli operations. Israeli attacks are expected to intensify following the security meeting between Lebanese and Israeli military officials that took place on May 29.
Notably, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been candid with American officials about his domestic calculations. He believes that ending the war without decisively defeating Hezbollah and stripping it of its weapons would leave him facing the same fate as former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after the 2006 Lebanon war — widely seen as a failure to achieve meaningful military objectives, a judgment that ultimately destroyed Olmert's political career. Netanyahu will not, therefore, yield to American pressure following any deal with Iran before securing concrete gains; a retreat, he calculates, would cost him dearly in any future election.
Sources confirm that President Trump is prioritizing the negotiations with Iran, even as he acknowledges the interlocking nature of the Iranian and Lebanese fronts. He is inclined toward halting military operations on all fronts, Lebanon included.
However, Hezbollah's conduct — its failure to observe restraint along the Israeli border, its attempts to undermine the Lebanese government's negotiating efforts, and its threats to bring down the government — pushed President Trump to give Israel greater latitude to deliver a decisive blow to the group.
Washington wants the operation to be swift and contained, to avoid keeping the front open in ways that could complicate the Iran negotiations, which are now in their final stages.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's most recent statement — forceful in its condemnation of Hezbollah and its attempts to sabotage the Lebanese government's efforts — reflected this posture, with Secretary Rubio declaring that the United States would not allow Hezbollah to bring down the government. This aligns with recent American sanctions targeting Hezbollah collaborators embedded within Lebanese state institutions — officials and civil servants suspected of acting as facilitators for the group within government bodies — as well as President Trump's endorsement of Israel's right to deal decisively with what Washington classifies as a terrorist organization.
Hezbollah as an Obstacle
Information from Washington indicates that the US administration has concluded that Hezbollah represents the primary obstacle to any peace agreement between Lebanon and Israel — and that there is a growing disposition to give Tel Aviv the green light to defeat it militarily, a step Washington now regards as a prerequisite for any lasting settlement.
That said, Washington remains committed to keeping the negotiations alive. American officials have noted that the Israeli and Lebanese sides have reached an unprecedented degree of alignment on a long-term framework for disarming Hezbollah, and that the progress made so far is without precedent. Once Hezbollah is neutralized, the US administration calculates it can guarantee a ceasefire and a phased Israeli withdrawal from the south.
It remains unclear, according to American sources, how firmly Iran will insist on including Lebanon in any ceasefire agreement — and whether that insistence will threaten to derail a broader deal. The Iranian government may be seeking to establish that Hezbollah is not simply a client at Tehran's disposal, but a full partner in both war and peace.
American sources close to the matter conclude that Iran's insistence on including Lebanon in any long-term ceasefire stems from a strategic conviction held by the Islamic Republic's leadership: the axis operates at peak effectiveness when its components work in concert, and is at its most vulnerable when one wing is left to face its fate alone, bleeding in isolation from the rest of the network. Iran does not appear prepared to abandon its oldest partner, Hezbollah — because doing so might prompt other allies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to question whether Iranian guarantees are conditional and revocable the moment Tehran decides the costs of solidarity have become too high.
Iran continues to regard Lebanon as an integral part of its deterrence architecture. And it is precisely this, American sources suggest, that makes it so difficult for Tehran to accept a ceasefire with the United States that does not account for Lebanon.
Washington, for its part, is firm: it will not accommodate Iranian demands to fold Lebanon into any ceasefire arrangement. Both the United States and Israel are in agreement that Hezbollah poses a threat not only to Israel but to the Lebanese state itself. A green light for a broader Israeli operation against Hezbollah is now in place, as drone attacks on Israel continue to escalate. The Trump administration, these sources make clear, will not allow Iran and Hezbollah to engage in hostile acts against its ally Israel — and Israel will not passively absorb attacks on its forces and civilians.
