It has been little more than a week since a 14-point peace framework between the US and Iran was signed. In that time, diplomacy has, if anything, intensified. This week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited the UAE and other Gulf countries for high-level talks. Meanwhile, the GCC have come together in Bahrain for a ministerial-level meeting with American counterparts. These developments took place amid unconfirmed reports that Riyadh could be the venue for a reconciliation meeting between Gulf countries and Iran.
However, another diplomatic track has been quietly unfolding in Washington, and it is one that deserves more attention than it has received. Weeks of direct talks between Lebanese and Israeli officials have often been viewed with scepticism for their limited ability to halt the violence sparked by Israel’s invasion. Nevertheless, some modest but tangible progress may be taking shape in the form of a so-called pilot withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied Lebanon, to be replaced by Lebanese troops.
This is not a sweeping breakthrough, nor does it resolve deeper tensions. In an interview with The National this week, former Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Herzog struck a worrying tone when he said the restraint forced on his country by the terms of America’s agreement with Iran was “very painful”. Nevertheless, the Washington talks represent something significant – elected Lebanese representatives acting on behalf of their people. Progress that is rooted Lebanon’s national institutions, even if incremental, should not be discounted.
This stands in contrast to a parallel dynamic that threatens to undercut this fragile process. Tehran’s approach, which treats Beirut as a lever in its dealings with Washington and Israel, reflects a long-standing pattern of proxy politics that has repeatedly undercut Lebanese sovereignty. Iran’s claim to represent Lebanese interests in negotiations with the US risks reducing Beirut to a bargaining chip in a broader geopolitical contest.
Negotiations about Lebanon without Lebanese representatives are diplomatically unsound and strategically flawed. They ignore the harsh realities facing Lebanon, such as a deepening displacement crisis, an economy in freefall, aggressive foreign forces on its soil and the state-within-a-state presence of Iran-backed Hezbollah. These are not abstract concerns about sovereignty but urgent, practical challenges that require accountable governance and locally grounded solutions. Stability imposed from outside has rarely proven sustainable in modern Lebanon.
This is not to suggest that international actors do not have a role to play. Countries such as France, along with other regional stakeholders, can contribute constructively to Lebanon’s search for stability. But support and substitution are not the same thing. External engagement must reinforce, not replace, Lebanese agency.
Critically, those who maintain armed proxies within Lebanon cannot credibly position themselves as neutral brokers of peace. Any framework that overlooks this reality risks perpetuating the dynamics it seeks to resolve.
If there is to be meaningful progress, it must come through Lebanon's government. The current talks, limited as they may be, should remind us that even in this fractured political landscape, Lebanese institutions retain a role that cannot be outsourced and should not be ignored. The challenge for the international community is not to speak for Lebanon, but to ensure it is heard.
