Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared during a troop visit to southern Lebanon on Tuesday that Israeli forces “will not leave” the area so long as Iran-backed Hezbollah remains a threat to his nation.
The day before, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz reinforced this position, stating that Israel’s military will not withdraw “a millimetre” until Hezbollah is disarmed.
These statements directly contradict the first clause of the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which mandates an immediate and permanent halt to fighting on “all fronts,” including Lebanon, where Israeli forces have occupied roughly one-fifth of the country since early March.
This stance has complicated the MOU through a separate U.S.-brokered framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon that does not require Israeli withdrawal or cessation of attacks—an arrangement Hezbollah has denounced. The result has been a de facto entrenchment of Israeli military presence in Lebanon, even as airstrikes have eased to avoid reigniting direct conflict with Iran.
Analysts are now questioning whether Netanyahu’s hardline rhetoric serves domestic political purposes or represents a genuine barrier to the MOU’s survival. As Cyrus Schayegh, professor of international history and politics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, explained to Al Jazeera, the prime minister faces a “lose-lose” dilemma: politically, a swift withdrawal from Lebanon could appear as capitulation and implicitly acknowledge submission to U.S. pressure, particularly with October elections looming.
Yet defying U.S. expectations risks a strain in Washington relations when Israel can least afford it. Netanyahu understands that U.S. President Donald Trump prioritizes preventing the Israel-Hezbollah front from undermining broader U.S.-Iran negotiations.
Tehran has consistently insisted that full Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territories must precede any peace deal with the United States. Schayegh notes this reflects Iran’s deep commitment to Hezbollah’s survival—the group’s ties with the Iranian regime extend beyond strategy into socio-cultural and familial bonds.
Geopolitical analyst Joe Macaron told Al Jazeera that Hezbollah’s willingness to strike northern Israel and potentially block the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates its significance to Iran, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
However, Schayegh suggests Iran may not seek a complete restoration of pre-2023 conditions, recognizing that Hezbollah’s role in southern Lebanon has evolved since the 2006 conflict. Instead, Hezbollah’s position could function as a bargaining chip in incremental diplomatic negotiations.
Political commentator Ronnie Chatah notes that Iran’s insistence on Lebanon as a sticking point reportedly delayed MOU negotiations, and the issue could still constrain a permanent U.S.-Iran agreement unless pressure mounts on Israel to project withdrawal.
Hezbollah’s exclusion from the Israel-Lebanon framework talks has drawn sharp criticism. Leader Naim Qassem denounced the Washington-deal as “humiliating, shameful and a surrender of sovereignty.”
While Hezbollah has held parliamentary seats since the mid-2000s and is not merely an Iranian proxy, Schayegh explains that Israel’s 2024 campaign severely weakened the group, increasing Iranian organizational influence. Chatah emphasizes Hezbollah’s critical importance to Iran—it represents Tehran’s most significant regional investment and remains a vital security asset.
The absence of Hezbollah’s buy-in could hinder implementation and spark further conflict, Macaron warns. A framework bypassing core issues like Israeli withdrawal and the Lebanese army’s role lacks solid foundation, serving only as a starting point rather than a final resolution.
For Washington, Macaron underscores that nuclear negotiations with Iran take clear precedence, making the U.S. unwilling to press Hezbollah excessively. Progress on Iran’s nuclear file could yield greater U.S. flexibility on Lebanon.
Schayegh adds that U.S. leverage over Iran has shifted—the Islamic Republic can now harm American interests directly, such as through Strait of Hormuz closure, impacting the global economy.
This dynamic places additional strain on the fragile MOU as both sides navigate competing priorities and evolving regional pressures.