Raja’a, a displaced 63-year-old widow from southern Lebanon, has been praying for an end to the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, a conflict that has claimed thousands of lives. As winter approaches, her anxieties increase. She frequently calls her friend, asking about the prospects for peace.
The U.S.-brokered truce, accepted by Lebanon and Israel’s war cabinet, falls short of Hezbollah’s proclaimed “divine victory” following the 2006 war. The agreement reportedly mandates Hezbollah’s heavy weapons withdrawal from southern Lebanon, a key Israeli demand. An American-led monitoring mechanism will verify this withdrawal and prevent Iran from rearming Hezbollah.
However, will this U.S. oversight ensure lasting peace, or will it merely be a temporary pause before renewed conflict as Hezbollah regroups and rebuilds its strength?
Israel remains skeptical. The previous ceasefire agreement, UN Security Council Resolution 1701, lacked enforcement. Consequently, Hezbollah significantly strengthened, armed by Iran, while UN peacekeepers and the Lebanese Armed Forces largely overlooked this growth.
To mitigate these concerns, the U.S. has reportedly granted Israel continued aerial reconnaissance over Lebanon and the right to preemptively strike emerging threats if the monitoring mechanism fails. Israeli officials have indicated their response will be proportionate to the mechanism’s effectiveness.
However, Washington’s assurances and the monitoring mechanism will only be effective with a cooperative Lebanese government committed to strengthening state sovereignty, enforcing border controls, and curbing Hezbollah’s military power.
The Lebanese army is highly respected, but requires political support from a sovereign president to act as the required partner. Even if the conflict ends, Lebanon cannot manage reconstruction without a reformist government that no longer tolerates Hezbollah’s military activities under the guise of resisting Israel.
U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein has largely avoided Lebanon’s internal affairs. However, more is needed to restart Beirut’s political process and prevent further conflict, as occurred after the last major war, when Hezbollah clashed with the Lebanese government.
Lebanon requires active management for sustained progress. Before the upcoming U.S. presidential transition, Hochstein should collaborate with France and Saudi Arabia, influential actors with experience mediating Lebanese disputes.
France, having observed Hochstein’s assertion of American leadership, could now actively participate in talks with Lebanese factions to resolve the political stalemate that has weakened state institutions.
The Saudis, who played a crucial role in ending the Lebanese civil war, have recently been less involved in Lebanon, focusing on their domestic agenda. However, they now have a stake in ensuring lasting ceasefires in Lebanon and Gaza to advance regional integration.
Both Saudi Arabia and France maintain a complex relationship with Iran, a factor affecting the post-conflict political landscape.
During his upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia, French President Macron should propose co-hosting a post-war national dialogue with American and Saudi support to address Beirut’s political issues and outline conditions for reconstruction funding. Appointing a competent successor to Hochstein should be a priority for the next U.S. administration.
Antonio Gramsci’s warning about the dangers of interregnum is pertinent. A neglected Beirut after a ceasefire could lead to further instability.
If people like Raja’a return to destroyed homes with no hope of rebuilding, Hochstein’s ceasefire will be short-lived.