Will Lebanon’s Ceasefire Gambit Bring a More Sustainable Peace?

Ahmad Sharawi | November 21, 2024

Lebanon’s willingness to assent to a U.S.-proposed ceasefire offers a pathway to ending the current war, but significant challenges remain. Chief among these is Israel’s demand for operational freedom, a point of contention fiercely opposed by Hezbollah and its patron, Iran. Tehran’s endorsement of a ceasefire will provide Hezbollah with the space to regroup and fortify its capabilities. Compounding these concerns are doubts about enforcement given the historical inability and unwillingness of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to effectively curb Hezbollah’s activities.

Opposition to Israeli Freedom of Action If Ceasefire is Violated

Israel has demanded freedom to operate within Lebanese territory if Hezbollah violates the terms of a ceasefire. Such violations would include Hezbollah’s rearmament, a presence in southern Lebanon, or attacks upon Israel. Hezbollah has rejected this condition, viewing it as a license for Israel to strike at the group whenever it chooses. Hezbollah also considers rearming after the war essential for its survival, and agreeing to such a clause could jeopardize its ability to regenerate. Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a long-time Hezbollah ally and the Lebanese state’s representative in the negotiations, has also opposed this demand, stating that to grant Israel such freedom of action is “unacceptable and cannot be discussed in principle.”

The absence of this clause risks repeating the failure to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which enabled Hezbollah to rebuild unchecked.

Iran’s Maneuver to Secure Hezbollah’s Survival and Regeneration

Ali Larijani, an advisor to Iran’s supreme leader, indicated that Iran would support any decision Lebanon takes in ceasefire talks with Israel. This aligns with the stance of Lebanese officials, including Nabih Berri, who seem eager to end the conflict. Berri recognizes that continuing the war is not in Hezbollah’s favor. Prolonged fighting risks the further degradation of Hezbollah’s capabilities, loss of territory in southern Lebanon, damage to key leadership, and growing internal opposition.

However, while Lebanon appears willing to push for a ceasefire, this willingness is largely driven by the pressure of Israel’s military campaign. Once the fighting stops, there is no assurance that Lebanon will prevent Hezbollah from rearming, nor that Iran will abandon its Shia proxy.

Israel’s Military Success Creates Opportunity for Further Strategic Gains

Israel’s best chance to gain an advantage in this conflict is through military pressure to maximize leverage in negotiations with Hezbollah.

Although to avoid appearing weak to Hezbollah’s base, the terrorist organization’s Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, insists there is no separation between the Gaza and Lebanon fronts, Hezbollah’s actions suggest otherwise. The sustained Israeli military pressure over the past two months seems to have forced Hezbollah to decouple the two conflicts.

The specific goal of Israel’s ground operation — whether to establish a 10-kilometer buffer zone or to advance to the Litani River — remains unclear. Reaching the Litani would give Israel a significant bargaining chip in negotiations.

United States Should Guarantee Israel’s Security

The United States should ensure that Israel’s freedom of action remains non-negotiable in any ceasefire agreement. Guaranteeing Israel’s right to defend itself against Hezbollah’s violations is essential for securing its military objectives.

Ahmad Sharawi is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where he focuses on Middle East affairs, specifically the Levant, Iraq, and Iranian intervention in Arab affairs, as well as U.S. foreign policy toward the region. For more analysis from Ahmad and FDD, please subscribe HERE. Follow Ahmad on X @AhmadA_Sharawi. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

November 21, 2024 | Comments »

Leave a Reply