Published on 6/20/2026
The opinions of the Lebanese people varied regarding the Iranian-American agreement, but the common denominator among most positions was the aspiration to end the war and restore security and economic stability in the country, after long months of tensions and losses that burdened the citizens.
Tehran and Washington had signed a memorandum of understanding that includes provisions related to ending the war on several fronts, including Lebanon, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and lifting the US naval blockade imposed on Iran.
A step to end the war
In this context, Muhammad al-Naddaf expressed his hope that the agreement would have a positive impact on Lebanon and the region, and that it would constitute a way to end the war and open a new page that would help the Lebanese people overcome the economic and living crises that worsened during the past period.
According to journalist Muhammad Al-Junun’s report to Al-Jazeera, Ibrahim Hegazy, for his part, saw that the majority of citizens welcome the agreement regardless of its parties, considering that it gave citizens a “space of hope” after months of war that damaged homes and businesses and caused many to lose their sources of livelihood, stressing everyone’s aspiration for a life of peace and security.
As for Badr Al-Rifai, he stressed that the priority remains to stop the war and prevent further destruction in southern Lebanon, considering that the conflict has not ended yet, while the demand of the Lebanese remains to live in dignity and pride away from the repercussions of wars.
For his part, Ali Khalifa expressed his hope that the agreement would lead to peace, noting that successive crises had exhausted the street, and that the Lebanese were searching for stability after years of suffering, despite his conviction that the conflict with Israel would remain for a long time.
Be careful about the deal
On the other hand, Zakaria Al-Masry considered that the agreement addresses files related to the United States and Iran, such as the Iranian nuclear file and frozen funds, stressing that the Lebanese state alone is the body authorized to negotiate the interests of the Lebanese, stressing at the same time the rejection of war and the desire to live in security and peace.
As for Hassan Hamdan, he focused on the importance of any step that leads to a ceasefire in Lebanon, considering that the identity of the party that contributes to achieving this remains a secondary matter compared to the suffering of the Lebanese, pointing out that what is most important to him is protecting the people of the south and preserving their dignity despite the great losses they have suffered.
Abu Muhammad expressed a degree of caution regarding the US-Iranian agreement, considering that it primarily serves the interests of the United States and Iran, while its repercussions on Lebanon are still unclear.
He stressed that the Lebanese want to end the war and restore the role of the state over all Lebanese territory, in addition to reviving the economy after years of successive crises.
