Breaking: Lebanon’s Government Becomes Israel’s Security Partner!

According to the political service of Saednews, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar wrote about the third round of Beirut–Tel Aviv negotiations in Washington:

The occupying entity in Lebanon has rushed into the embrace of its American sponsor, while Washington has gradually succeeded in turning the Lebanese government—amid an open confrontation with the resistance—into a security partner of the Israeli enemy. However, in return, this occupier in Beirut has received no real guarantees regarding the cessation of hostilities, withdrawal, or even the establishment of stability.

According to ISNA, the ongoing negotiations between Lebanon and the Zionist regime do not indicate that Lebanon is moving toward protecting its sovereignty. Rather, they more clearly reflect its participation in security arrangements that primarily serve Israeli priorities under the cover of “calming tensions” and “preventing escalation.”

More concerning is that all of this is happening while southern Lebanon remains under fire, and Tel Aviv retains significant operational freedom to continue its military actions under the same American umbrella. This point was highlighted in a statement by the U.S. State Department regarding the “extension of the ceasefire in Lebanon for 45 days following the latest round of highly constructive negotiations between Lebanon and Israel.” The statement also announced the “creation of a security mechanism at the Ministry of Defense building on May 29 with the participation of military delegations from Lebanon and Israel.”

It is now clear that Lebanon has accepted a new framework of security coordination with the enemy through the United States, similar to developments in the occupied Palestinian territories, where the Ramallah Authority became a partner of the occupying forces in pursuing resistance fighters and arresting or killing them.

While reports in Beirut about “progress” promoted by American officials have intensified, it has become clear that discussions were in fact centered on the outcomes of prior U.S.–Israel talks held before the two meetings on Thursday and Friday, with a proposal presented to the Lebanese delegation. According to available information, the Israeli plan is based on several key points, the most important of which are:

1. Lebanon is being pushed toward accepting the concept of ending hostilities with Israel, to be rapidly implemented through legislation in Parliament repealing the boycott law against Israel and decriminalizing contact with Israelis.

2. The Lebanese government would commit to implementing its March 2 decision classifying the military and security wings of Hezbollah as “illegal organizations,” and to work through military, judicial, and security institutions toward dismantling them.

3. Lebanon must provide clear guarantees under a direct U.S.-supervised coordination mechanism, the details of which are being discussed with American and Israeli parties, to implement the plan of expanding state authority and restricting weapons across the entire country.

4. The United States has pledged to fund and equip a new brigade in the Lebanese army, with American involvement in selecting officers and personnel—excluding anyone suspected of close ties to or support for Hezbollah. Washington would also train this unit to become the main force responsible for the military implementation of disarmament efforts, including entering any public or private facilities or sites in open areas to carry out weapons seizures.

5. The Lebanese government would agree to a direct coordination mechanism with the Israeli army through an American intermediary, ensuring proper implementation of any agreement and guaranteeing to Israel that Hezbollah will not remain a military force.

It appears that the Thursday and Friday meetings were only another round of preliminary talks, and that a forthcoming U.S. “declaration of intent” is expected to indicate that both sides have agreed to begin a subsequent phase of political and military-operational negotiations.

Reports also suggest that Israel intends to expand its role by having former minister Ron Dermer lead the negotiations, while Lebanon is expected to strengthen its delegation by adding a senior minister.

However, the most important aspect of all these developments is that Israel is linking any commitment to a comprehensive ceasefire or a timetable for withdrawal of its forces from Lebanese territory to Lebanon’s commitment to implementing agreements related to disarmament and security arrangements.

Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that they do not trust past experiences, and therefore propose mechanisms under U.S. supervision that would, in practice, create direct cooperation between Lebanese officials and representatives of the Israeli occupation regime against the resistance.

Meanwhile, Joseph Aoun attempted to portray these developments as a major achievement, telling visitors that the Washington meetings “open the door to a ceasefire agreement.” However, the discussions revealed deeper complexities. When Simon Karam, the former ambassador and head of the Lebanese delegation in Washington, informed Aoun that the American and Israeli sides were asking who would guarantee Hezbollah’s compliance with any agreement, Aoun immediately called Nabih Berri, the Speaker of Parliament, and asked him directly: “If a ceasefire agreement is reached, will Hezbollah adhere to it?”

Berri responded: “First, establish a comprehensive ceasefire with no military operations, shelling, raids, assassinations, or targeting across Lebanon, and ensure a halt to bulldozing operations in occupied areas. Then bring me a timetable for the full withdrawal of occupying forces from all occupied territories, and only then can I guarantee Hezbollah’s commitment to the ceasefire.”