Israel-Lebanon Agreement Offers Political Gains but Leaves Ground Realities Unchanged

The recent agreement signed between Israel and Lebanon in Washington provides both sides with political and diplomatic benefits, yet it does little to alter the actual situation on the ground. The document’s precise details, including the border demarcations favored by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are largely symbolic. Since November 2024, the Lebanese army has proven unable and perhaps unwilling to control areas dominated by Hezbollah, which remains the dominant force in southern Lebanon.

While the agreement renews Lebanon’s official commitment to curb Hezbollah’s influence, the Lebanese military lacks the capacity to enforce this. U.S. support promised to Lebanon’s army is significant but may falter after any American casualties. The internal political pressures that restrained Hezbollah until March 2026, allowing the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) relative freedom of operation in Lebanon, have weakened. Hezbollah’s power was diminished by Israeli strikes in 2024 and warnings from Iran, but Iran emerged stronger following an Israeli-American offensive.

The U.S., under the Trump administration, seeks to reduce its Middle East involvement, viewing the Israel-Lebanon deal as part of a broader, flawed agreement with Iran. Although the U.S. can compel Lebanon to sign a paper effectively accepting continued Israeli presence in southern Lebanon, it cannot dictate the ongoing resistance against this occupation.

On the ground, the situation remains dire: Israeli occupation, widespread destruction, and displaced persons persist. The current Israeli government and military now have official justification to maintain this status quo. The resulting "security zone" in southern Lebanon neither protects northern Israel from Hezbollah attacks nor prevents guerrilla incursions, while stretching the IDF’s resources and enabling Hezbollah to regain domestic legitimacy by opposing the occupation.

Between November 2024 and March 2026, a relatively stable period existed with the IDF operating freely, Hezbollah restrained, Iran limited, and Lebanon’s government gaining strength. However, this stability was disrupted by the Israeli-American strike on Iran and Hezbollah’s subsequent retaliation. Israel now faces a familiar, challenging reality that the Washington agreement does not resolve, despite political declarations to the contrary.

Ofer Shelah, head of the National Security Policy Program at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), authored this analysis.