Carole Salloum, “Akhbar al-Yawm” agency

Teetering on the Edge: The Uncertain Future of Lebanon's "Truce"

The bet is always on U.S. mediation

As the two-month deadline for the ceasefire agreement—or what everyone now calls the "truce"—approaches, the most frequently asked question revolves around the next stage and how the various parties will approach it. Additionally, inquiries about the implementation of the key provisions and the guarantees provided in the U.S. letter of assurance remain central to the discussion.

There is no doubt that work is ongoing regarding several provisions of this agreement, particularly those related to dismantling all infrastructure and military sites, confiscating unauthorized weapons, and dismantling all facilities involved in the production of weapons and related materials. It is worth noting that these responsibilities fall under the Lebanese army, which is tasked with implementing UN Resolution 1701, as it is the sole entity authorized to carry arms.

At the same time, Hezbollah is the party handing over these weapons and responding to any demands in this context. Therefore, the highest level of cooperation is required from it; otherwise, Israel may act at any moment against violations of the commitments as outlined in the letter.

Given this situation, the army finds itself at the heart of a challenging mission. Nevertheless, it is carrying out its duties as agreed. Yesterday, the Israeli army issued a statement claiming it had destroyed medium-range rocket launchers used by Hezbollah and noted that the Lebanese army had not responded to its request to deactivate Hezbollah's launchers. This raises questions about the possibility of a repeat of such incidents and the fragility of the agreement’s implementation and commitments.

Here, informed political sources tell "Akhbar Al-Yawm" agency that strengthening the agreement in the next phase is the responsibility of the stakeholders involved and that the army’s role is fundamental. However, failing to support or cooperate with Hezbollah undermines the army’s mission and risks escalating tensions in the future. The sources emphasized that the army has deployed and is fulfilling its agreed-upon responsibilities, and any confrontation during its mission with any party would have negative repercussions. Thus, it is inappropriate to hold the army accountable for the failure of the agreement’s stipulations.

The same sources confirmed that the decision to strengthen the army’s presence in the south was taken within the government, making its political support a foregone conclusion. They revealed ongoing communications and meetings led by Army Commander General Joseph Aoun to strengthen and enhance the army’s presence. At the same time, to avoid any negative scenarios, the parties involved must adhere to the terms of the agreement, even if it is described as a "forced" agreement.

The agreement is fragile and, as evident on the ground, remains susceptible to breaches. However, its survival and reinforcement are also a U.S. responsibility, according to the sources, who believe that no clear answer regarding the next stage will emerge unless the agreement is extended or restructured. Meanwhile, the possibility of renewed skirmishes between Hezbollah and Israel remains speculative, with reliance placed on U.S. mediation.

The heightened rhetoric surrounding the agreement does not necessarily indicate a desire to overthrow it; rather, it may highlight the need for it to prevent chaos that would benefit no one.