The corridors of international politics are witnessing a state of political tension and controversy following the leak of the expected draft memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, which aims to formulate a comprehensive truce and end the war.
However, this scene full of cautious optimism collides with a sharp apparent contradiction. While the circulating proposal stipulates a comprehensive and immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the Israeli government chief of staff comes out to clearly announce that Tel Aviv is not a direct party to this agreement.
This discrepancy puts us before a structural paradox: How can a bilateral agreement between two international and regional powers impose a binding security architecture on a burning front like Lebanon, while the player on the ground – Israel – stands outside the cover of the agreement? In this report, we deconstruct this contradiction through three questions:
What did the leaked reports say about the text of the upcoming memorandum of understanding?
Intersecting and leaked reports from behind the scenes of the negotiations, especially what was reported by Iranian and Western media, reveal a wide-ranging draft of understanding that goes beyond the traditional framework of the nuclear file, to include a mutual package of security, economic and political concessions.
Regarding what was stated in the draft about Lebanon, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi confirmed that he would announce in the memorandum an end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, stressing that the negotiations will not move forward if the pledges of the opposing party in the memorandum of understanding are not implemented within 60 days, pointing out that his country will never abandon Hezbollah.
The inclusion of Lebanon in the draft represents a fundamental turning point that Tehran insisted on to ensure that the Lebanese arena is not isolated. However, the approach here does not deal with a “temporary truce,” but rather with a formulation that aims to “end the state of war” with its full effects, as the draft does not include the phrase “extending the ceasefire.”
Araqchi revealed that ending the war in the memorandum of understanding also includes the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories of Lebanon, saying: “We made that clear frankly.”
However, the available information says that the issue of the Israeli army’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon has been postponed to the second stage, with the issue being outside the negotiating space between Iran and Washington, which raises questions about the fate of the occupied Lebanese territories, according to Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran, Adnan Al-Bourini.
The newspaper “Israel Hayom” quoted a senior White House official as saying that the success of the agreement depends on Iran’s behavior. He added: “If the Iranians do not adhere to their pledges, I will not expect the Israelis to refrain from taking action. If Hezbollah fires missiles at Israel, and if Iran finances missiles launched at Israel, it will be clear that they have not adhered to the terms of the agreement… We expect Iran to be a real actor for the sake of peace.”
What is the nature of the recent Israeli statements and how do they relate to the path of understanding?
Israeli positions focus on right-wing internal pressures that fear that the US-Iranian agreement will lead to “tying the hand of the Israeli army” in Lebanon.
For Israel, the agreement ostensibly represents a “unification of theatres.” However, it still says that it will not restrict its army, and that it will oppose withdrawal from the occupied territories in southern Lebanon, and considered it an option not on the agenda. A security source reported, on Friday, that the Israeli army will continue to “dismantle Hezbollah” in the south, and that it is working to dismantle its infrastructure.
Since the features of the agreement began to unfold, Israel has renewed its assertion that if Hezbollah fires on it, it will respond by striking the suburb, and if Iran responds, it will attack it and will not accept the equation of unity of the squares, and it has the right to enjoy freedom of action in Lebanon against emerging threats, according to Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.
Coinciding with the height of the negotiating movement between Washington and Tehran, sharp statements emerged from Defense Minister Israel Katz, who wrote on the X Network: “Israel will not withdraw from the security areas in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. The Israeli army will continue to defend our borders and our citizens from within Mount Hermon, the mountains of Lebanon, the regions of our country in Samaria, and most of the territory of Gaza, against the threats of jihadist forces and organizations, as a basic lesson from the events of October 7.”
On the other hand, the newspaper presented another scenario, saying that it is possible that Hezbollah, in light of the agreement between Washington and Tehran, will tighten its positions and refuse to withdraw from the areas south of the Litani River, as stipulated in the understandings between Israel, Lebanon, and the United States.
There is another scenario, which is that Iran may prefer, at this stage, for the party to retreat and withdraw a little, until it catches its breath and recovers from the blows it received, because its continued presence in southern Lebanon means the continuation of the war and its further exhaustion.
The newspaper points out that even if Israel agrees to withdraw, it will not withdraw suddenly, but rather it will be a gradual and conditional withdrawal. However, it considered this scenario to be very unlikely at the present time.
What are the scenes behind the American pressure on Tel Aviv?
On Thursday evening, President Donald Trump called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with news that the latter did not want to hear. According to a senior American official, Trump told Netanyahu: “This is the agreement. It is a wonderful agreement, and it is time to end this war.”
Netanyahu made clear from the beginning that he believed war could spur regime change in Iran, and now, four months before the election, his rivals accuse him of turning Israel into a “vassal state” by simply accepting Trump’s peace terms.
All eyes are now on Netanyahu – who may play the role of spoiler of the agreement even if it is implemented – but perhaps the call carried a message that Netanyahu realized that he could not prevent Trump from signing it, according to what a US official told Axios.
The events in Lebanon constitute one of the factors that may destabilize the agreement, as Israeli forces are still carrying out attacks on Lebanon, and for Netanyahu, the joint signing of an agreement to end the war without achieving its stated goals will represent a major strategic and political blow that will weaken him at home more than ever before.
As the intensity of the clashes with Iran escalated earlier this week, Netanyahu planned to launch massive strikes against energy and infrastructure facilities, before Trump stopped him at the last minute. Since that moment, Netanyahu found himself out of the loop and isolated from the events as he began contacting his allies in Washington to obtain intelligence information about Trump’s negotiations, according to an American source familiar with the matter.
As for the scene behind the scenes, Axios newspaper says that Netanyahu and other Israeli officials are careful not to criticize Trump publicly, but in closed meetings they strongly doubt the upcoming agreement.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Friday that Trump is seeking to reach an agreement based on his assessment of American interests, but Israel expects him to adhere to common “principles” regarding Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, and “proxies.”
Israeli officials are concerned that, because the ceasefire in the agreement applies to Lebanon, the Trump administration will limit their freedom of action against Hezbollah and demand that it be consulted in every strike.
“I understand Israeli suspicions,” a senior US official said Friday in a briefing for reporters. “Hezbollah has killed a lot of Israelis, so we don’t expect any country to give up its right to self-defense. What we expect is that if we can get everyone involved in the peace process, everyone will do the same thing.” The official said the White House “feels confident” that the Israelis “will eventually agree.”
However, the question remains open about the extent of Israel’s readiness to adhere to a ceasefire and stop the war, in light of the experience of a previous truce that Netanyahu violated the morning after it was signed to announce that Israel was not included in it?
