A tentative agreement to end months of devastating conflict across the Middle East faces collapse over a fundamental disagreement: whether Israel must withdraw from Lebanese territory it has occupied during the war.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tuesday that any lasting peace requires Israel to fully leave Lebanon. "Without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories they occupied during this war, the war has not fully come to an end," Araghchi stated. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the condition, declaring that Israel would remain in Lebanon "as long as necessary."
The disagreement exposes a critical gap in the emerging accord between the United States and Iran—an agreement that Israel is not formally party to, despite being a central actor in the conflict. A U.S. official, speaking anonymously, said the deal does not call for Israeli withdrawal, contradicting Iran's interpretation and raising questions about whether the agreement can hold.
The Human Cost of Prolonged Conflict
The stakes are measured in lives and displacement. Israeli strikes in Lebanon have killed nearly 4,000 people, including hundreds of civilians, and displaced more than 1 million. The monthslong war has killed thousands across the Middle East, disrupted global energy supplies through the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and driven up prices of fuel, food, and other basic goods far beyond the region.
Even U.S. President Donald Trump, typically aligned with Israel, expressed frustration with the scale of the operation. "Israel's fighting Hezbollah too long, and too many people are being killed," Trump said Tuesday while attending the Group of Seven summit in the French Alps. He added that he was "not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and with Hezbollah," characterizing the strategy as endless: "It just goes on forever."
Competing Visions of Peace
The disagreement over Lebanon reflects deeper tensions in the negotiations. According to two regional officials with direct knowledge of the interim deal, speaking anonymously, the accord would require Israel to leave nearly all territory it occupies in Lebanon, minus a few hilltop points along the border seized earlier. These officials said Iran insisted the accord include Lebanon in the final days of negotiations, signaling that Iranian leadership views the occupation as incompatible with a genuine ceasefire.
Israel invaded southern Lebanon after Hezbollah fired missiles across the border during the first week of the war. Since then, it has expanded its military footprint to levels unseen in decades and struck targets deep inside Beirut. Though Hezbollah has been weakened, it retains the ability to strike Israel, leaving open questions about whether Israel's military campaign has achieved its stated objectives.
Notably, as of Tuesday evening, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had not yet seen the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, according to a person familiar with the situation.
The Broader Agreement and Remaining Questions
The deal, scheduled for signing Friday at the Bürgenstock resort near Luzern, Switzerland, includes provisions intended to stabilize the region. The agreement calls for the "immediate" opening of the Strait of Hormuz and lifting of the American naval blockade of Iranian ports. The United States and Iran will then begin 60 days of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program and the potential lifting of sanctions.
The pact also includes the possibility of releasing Iran's frozen funds and a $300 billion fund to help rebuild Iran if Tehran meets certain benchmarks, according to senior U.S. officials. Gulf Arab states have pledged to inject billions of dollars into Iran's economy.
Regarding Iran's nuclear program, officials said Iran has agreed to discuss ways to possibly "dilute or remove" its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. However, it remains unclear whether Tehran would agree to that, particularly with hard-liners opposing giving it up. U.S. officials have not yet explained how they see the agreement addressing verification and compliance mechanisms.
International Pressure for Implementation
World leaders gathering in France for the Group of Seven summit insisted the agreement needs to succeed, even as key questions remained unanswered. The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement congratulating the United States, the Iranian government, and mediators on what they called a "diplomatic breakthrough," saying it was vital for the deal to be quickly implemented. French President Emmanuel Macron said France and other Western nations were "ready to take action very quickly" to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz peacefully.
Trump said he is open to sending the emerging agreement to the U.S. Congress for review. Republicans on Capitol Hill have requested more information about the agreement, with some expressing skepticism that the deal can deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon.
The negotiations have been plagued by disagreements before, leading to a prolonged but uneasy ceasefire that has failed to develop into permanent peace. The current dispute over Lebanon's occupation threatens to repeat that pattern, potentially leading to the resumption of all-out war.
Why This Matters:
The disagreement over Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon reveals a fundamental tension in the emerging peace framework: whether agreements can meaningfully constrain military occupation and protect civilian populations. With nearly 4,000 dead in Lebanon and over 1 million displaced, the question of whether Israel maintains territorial control directly affects whether peace is durable or merely a pause in conflict. The fact that Israel is not party to the U.S.-Iran agreement yet holds the power to derail it raises questions about whose interests are centered in negotiations and whether affected populations—Lebanese civilians bearing the costs of occupation—have meaningful voice in agreements that determine their fate. The involvement of regional mediators like Pakistan and Qatar, and international pressure from G7 nations, suggests recognition that sustainable peace requires multilateral consensus and institutional frameworks, not unilateral military decisions. The 60-day nuclear negotiations ahead will test whether this agreement can move from ceasefire to genuine conflict resolution.