Despite the US President’s confirmation Donald Trump That negotiations between US andIran While the remaining obstacles are still ongoing and can be resolved within days, the developments of recent weeks indicate that the path towards a comprehensive agreement is still full of complications. Among the pending files that impose themselves forcefully, it stands out Lebanon As one of the most sensitive issues for… Tehran.
The renewed escalation in South LebanonIn addition to the tensions he witnessed GulfThey again raised questions about the limits of possible understanding between… Washington And Tehran, and whether the file “Hezbollah“ It forms part of the contract that continues to impede reaching a final settlement.
Joseph Aoun: Naim Qassem does not represent the Lebanese people… And to the Revolutionary Guards: Lebanon is our country, not yours.
Two visions inside Iran
Within Iran, two different trends emerge in approaching the Lebanese file.
The first trend, of a diplomatic and political nature, calls for coordinating the Iranian position with the position of the Lebanese state regarding the Hezbollah issue, and believes that Tehran is not required to be “more careful than a mother is about her child.” Although this movement has been subjected to criticism from extremist circles that describe it as liberal or leaning towards the West, it is still present in internal political debates. He stresses that supporting Lebanese territorial integrity and respecting state sovereignty do not conflict with recognizing the role played by Hezbollah in confronting… Israel.
The second trend is related to the basic centers of power in Iran, in particular Revolutionary GuardHe considers that supporting Hezbollah represents a red line that cannot be undone. From the point of view of this movement, the issue of the party’s weapons is not exclusively related to the official Lebanese position, but rather falls within the framework of a broader security and regional system. This position is based on two basic considerations: the first is that Hezbollah constitutes an essential element of deterrence against Israel, and the second is that the relationship between the party and Tehran goes beyond immediate political considerations to deep-rooted historical and ideological ties.
Repercussions on the negotiation process
This internal discrepancy was reflected in the atmosphere of negotiations with the United States. After a period of relative optimism, the scene returned to tension with the escalation of friction in… Strait of Hormuz Israel is close to carrying out strikes against targets in Beirut andSouthern suburb.
A number of observers believe that the Lebanon issue and its ceasefire occupy a central position in this transformation. The Speaker of the Iranian Shura Council noted Muhammad Baqir Qalibaf He pointed out that the Israeli attacks and threats against Lebanon represent a violation of a number of basic provisions in the Iranian proposal on the negotiating table, considering that the continuation of these violations weakens the feasibility of talking about consolidating the truce or continuing negotiations.
In turn, the Iranian Foreign Minister stressed Abbas Araghji However, any ceasefire between Iran and the United States must include all arenas, including Lebanon, and that the different fronts cannot be dealt with according to separate criteria.
An Iranian woman carries the Hezbollah flag during a night rally in support of the regime, in Tehran. (AFP)
Red line or pressure tool?
From Tehran’s perspective, Lebanon is not seen as merely a local arena. Iran considers that southern Lebanon and the military and political structure of Hezbollah form part of the regional deterrence system linked to its national security.
Therefore, the Iranian leadership places stopping Israeli attacks on Lebanon and ensuring compliance with the truce among its main priorities. It believes that any decline in this file may be interpreted as an indicator of weakness, which may encourage increased pressure in other arenas, such as Iraq andPalestine andYemen. Supporters of this approach believe that reducing the emphasis on this principle during some stages of the negotiations in the past two months has encouraged Israel to adopt a more escalatory approach.
On the other hand, some observers believed that the speech of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Naeem Qasim He carried an indirect message to Tehran, stating that “the party’s support must remain outside of any possible bargains in the negotiations with Washington,” and that the Lebanon file “should maintain its advanced position among the priorities of the axis of resistance.” Qassem considered that any talk about disarming Hezbollah paves the way for what he described as “the annihilation of the Lebanese,” in a position that does not fully match the Lebanese state’s vision of this issue.
Also, some activists affiliated with the security circles warned on the “X” platform of any decline in the level of Iranian support for the party, considering that “neglecting the priority of the Lebanese file may leave strategic repercussions that extend beyond the Lebanese arena itself.”
Other analyzes suggest that Tehran’s focus on Lebanon and the ceasefire may form part of a broader strategy to manage diplomatic and security pressures, by highlighting the Israeli role in the escalation, thus increasing international pressure on Lebanon. Tel Aviv It deepens the differences between it and Washington.
opinion
The duo “accepts the results of negotiations but rejects them”!
It is not a simple or marginal detail that, coinciding with the final round of negotiations on June 2 and 3 between Lebanon and Israel in Washington, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi sought to appear from Beirut on television to demonstrate the preservation of his country’s influence and the continued influence of its role in Lebanon and link it to the Iranian-American negotiations, on the basis that Lebanon is linked to Iran, and its peace is its peace, by declaring that any attack on Beirut will have “severe consequences” and may lead to the resumption of the war.
The Institute for War Studies indicated that highlighting this file may also serve the goal of buying time in light of the fragile truce that has been in place since April 8, allowing Iran to rearrange some of its military capabilities, especially in the areas of ballistic missiles and drones that were damaged during the recent confrontations.
Also, focusing on Lebanon may divert attention from the core issues that remain a matter of disagreement between Tehran and Washington.
Regardless of the differences in readings, Lebanon appears to constitute one of the most prominent red lines for Iran in its negotiations with the United States. Until the fate of this file becomes clear, the possibility of reaching a comprehensive understanding between Tehran and Washington will remain surrounded by many question marks.
