
US, Israel and Lebanon Sign Framework to End Hostilities, Hezbollah Rejects Terms
The trilateral agreement outlines a phased Israeli withdrawal and Hezbollah disarmament, but the Iran-backed group warns of civil war.
Israel, Lebanon and the United States signed a 14-point trilateral framework agreement in Washington on 26 June, following five rounds of US-mediated talks. The text, released by the State Department, commits the parties to a “reciprocal, sequenced process” under which the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would restore sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and the dismantling of their infrastructure. This would enable the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to progressively redeploy from Lebanese territory. As an initial step, the IDF will withdraw from two pilot zones—one north and one south of the Litani River—where the LAF will assume full security responsibility, with US military officers helping to verify the absence of Hezbollah fighters.
Viewed from Washington, the framework is designed to create a “genuine pathway out of a long crisis” for Lebanon and a “verifiable path to removing the persistent threat” on Israel’s northern border. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the signing as “the beginning of the beginning” and announced a US-facilitated Military Coordination Group for Lebanon, $100 million in humanitarian assistance, and $30 million to reimburse the LAF. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel would maintain its security zone in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed and that displaced civilians would not yet be permitted to return. The Israeli ambassador in Washington declared that “Iran is out, Hezbollah is out, and the road to peace between Israel and Lebanon is in.” Lebanese President Joseph Aoun called the accord a first step toward restoring full sovereignty, while Prime Minister Nawaf Salam stressed that the framework requires a complete Israeli withdrawal and the extension of state authority through the armed forces.
Hezbollah, which was not a party to the negotiations, immediately rejected the agreement. A member of its parliamentary bloc warned that Lebanese authorities would be unable to enforce the terms “unless they go, with American support, to civil war,” and the group’s leader, Naim Qassem, demanded an unconditional Israeli withdrawal. The framework was concluded separately from the interim US-Iran deal, but Iranian negotiators had previously insisted that any settlement with Washington must include a ceasefire in Lebanon. Hezbollah-aligned voices in Beirut described the Washington agreement as an attempt to disrupt the broader US-Iran diplomatic track.
The latest conflict erupted on 2 March 2026 when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in retaliation for the US-Israeli strikes that killed Iran’s supreme leader. Israel’s subsequent air and ground campaign has killed more than 4,000 people in Lebanon and displaced over a million, while dozens of Israeli soldiers and civilians have died. Several ceasefires have failed to hold, and Israeli forces continue to occupy a buffer zone in the south. The framework now moves to implementation, with the two pilot zones serving as a test of the LAF’s ability to assert control and of Hezbollah’s willingness to cede its military presence. Further pilot areas will be agreed by mutual consent, and the parties are expected to begin drafting a comprehensive peace and security agreement.
| Arab Levant-Maghreb press | +0.80 | aligned |
|---|---|---|
| Iranian & allied press | −0.80 | critical |
Sovereign Lebanon thanks the US and confirms commitment to Israeli withdrawal and Hezbollah disarmament, presenting the agreement as the fruit of national diplomacy.
Emphasizes the role of the Lebanese government and president as sovereign actors negotiating directly with the US and Israel, obscuring Hezbollah's consent and presenting disarmament as an internal decision.
Does not mention Hezbollah's conditions or operational details of disarmament, nor controversial Israeli demands for buffer zones.
Iran rejects the agreement as an American imposition, denounces ceasefire violations, and rises as a bastion of regional resistance against Western hegemony.
Equates the agreement to military aggression, building symmetry between Washington's actions and the need for an Iranian response, thus justifying a confrontational posture.
Omits the Lebanese government's consent and the mediating role of the United States, presenting the agreement as a diktat imposed by force.
Broaden your view
SpaceX revenue jumps 92% in first post-IPO quarter, but AI spending triggers share slide
1 language · 31 outlets
From TechnologyBoeing 737 MAX 7 wins FAA certification after near-decade of scrutiny
3 languages · 18 outlets
From Science & HealthEbola Outbreak in DR Congo Outpaces Response as Cases Near 4,000
8 languages · 15 outlets