Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the Middle Eastern politics & society myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
The writer is author of ‘Black Wave’ and an FT contributing editor
“Beware of small states,” wrote Russian anarchist and writer Mikhail Bakunin in 1870. “They are the victims of greater states, yet a source of danger to them too.”
If ever there was a country to which this applied, it is tiny Lebanon, which has emerged as the main source of danger for President Donald Trump’s much-vaunted and much-decried Memorandum of Understanding with Iran.
The initial US-Iran talks due to begin in the picturesque Swiss mountain resort of Bürgenstock on Friday were cancelled because of continued fighting in Lebanon, despite the MOU’s call for the end of military operations on all fronts, explicitly including Lebanon.
A multitude of other particulars, of substance and optics, were no doubt also still unresolved, which contributed to US vice-president JD Vance cancelling his trip. Much remains unclear about the agreement’s application, with a number of discrepancies between the US and Iranian versions. Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour at Carnegie Endowment has described the deal as a Memorandum of Misunderstanding. Adding to the nebulousness, Vance spoke of unwritten aspects covered by a gentleman’s agreement. This is the kind of thing that Iran would never trust any US president to abide by, especially not one who tore apart the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal.
It was no surprise then that, on Thursday evening, Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issued a statement in which he distanced himself from the MOU, stating that he initially had a different opinion about the deal but had ultimately authorised it, before laying responsibility for its success or failure on President Masoud Pezeshkian.
With this nifty hedging, Khamenei demonstrated he is clearly his father’s son — Ali Khamenei had adopted a similar approach to the JCPOA. High on the hubris of having fought America and Israel to a stalemate, Iran may now over-reach, instead of rushing to seal a deal that favours it overwhelmingly.
But while the world pores over the fourteen points of the MOU, the nuances of Tehran’s pronouncements and Trump’s bombast, while scrutinising any naval traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, Lebanon carries the seeds of escalation that could undo it all, offering Israel the perfect foil to thwart Trump’s dealmaking with Iran.
Early Friday morning, the Shia militant group Hizbollah engaged in fierce battles against the Israeli troops occupying south Lebanon, killing four soldiers. As of Friday evening, heavy Israeli shelling had killed 47 people and injured 97 in south Lebanon. Far-right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir declared that “for every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!”
By the end of Friday, the US claimed that Israel and Hizbollah had agreed to a ceasefire though clashes continued and there was no word on new plans for a US-Iran meeting. Meanwhile, earlier this week, Iran’s speaker of parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf proudly declared that “Lebanon had offered 4,000 martyrs to defend the Islamic republic.” So much for Hizbollah’s denials that it was an ally, not a proxy, of Iran and that it was defending Lebanon.
The militant group has been unable to fend off Israel’s devastating onslaught against south Lebanon. This has led to the wholesale destruction of dozens of villages, via Israeli shelling, strikes or controlled demolitions and a depopulated, unlivable 10-kilometre-wide zone along the border and beyond. Israel insists it will maintain control over the area as long as Hizbollah remains armed and active. A fifth of Lebanon’s population has been displaced by the Israeli military campaign.
Stuck between Israel and Iran, Lebanon faces innumerable dangers, the smaller victim of more powerful nations fighting their wanton wars on its territory. It also presents Israel and the US with a conundrum: by fixating on the unattainable goal of Hizbollah’s total military defeat, Israel is playing into the hands of Iran. It also risks pushing Lebanon back into the Iranian orbit. The only channel for Lebanon ceasefire talks should be the direct Israel-Lebanon talks, which began in May, with a third round due next week in Washington.
Lebanon’s president Joseph Aoun has spoken forcefully and courageously against Iran using Lebanon as a bargaining chip and called diplomacy with Israel the only way forward. “We have a great opportunity for both the Lebanese and the Israeli people to live in safety and security,” he told CNN.
For now, minimal progress has been made in the talks and Lebanon has little leverage at the table. Yet Israel could make demonstrable concessions that do not undermine its security, including border demarcation, releasing detainees and reducing overflights. This would bolster the government’s claim that it can deliver where Hizbollah failed.
Short of forcible disarmament of Hizbollah, Lebanon can neutralise the group by credibly tightening the security, legal and financial space it operates in. Never a player, always a playground, Lebanon must find its way out of Iran’s deadly embrace and shed its passive posture in the face of Israeli belligerence. With help from Lebanon’s Arab allies, this could yet be the first opening in the darkness after three years of devastating, traumatic regional conflict.
Credit: Source link
