President Aoun is rightly proud of his team that helped reach an agreement on June 26. Together, they have put the Lebanese state fully in charge of a realistic path to peace. It starts with linked and phased Israeli withdrawal, Lebanese Army deployment, and continued disarming of Hezbollah, but opens the door for immediate work on how to realize a shared Israeli and Lebanese ambition to establish peace. Much work lies ahead, but the June 26 agreement is a rare act of constructive statesmanship in the Middle East.
In contrast, Iran’s interpretation of the Lebanon passages in its own MOU with the U.S. and subsequent behavior revealed for all to see its true intentions. We all know that when Iran talks about ceasefires, sovereignty and territorial integrity for Lebanon, they mean the exact opposite. They tried but could not succeed in convincing the U.S. administration to support a disorderly and unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon as a price for progress in the Persian Gulf. That outcome would have enabled their proxy and the 100 or more IRCG personnel in occupation of Lebanon to fill the vacuum, much like the withdrawal of 2000. Instead, the momentum has returned to an agreed, practical and phased approach that ensures the Lebanese Army and state, and not Hezbollah, fills in as the IDF pulls out, with international reconstruction aid.
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is an independent, non-partisan, not-for-profit, educational organization. It does not engage in advocacy and its scholars’ opinions are their own. MEI welcomes financial donations, but retains sole editorial control over its work and its publications reflect only the authors’ views. For a listing of MEI donors, please click here.
