美以黎签署三方框架协议：以军分阶段撤出，真主党须解除武装
华盛顿发布14点框架，确立结束战争状态、黎巴嫩政府恢复主权及非国家武装团体解除武装的路线图，但真主党与以色列在撤军条件上分歧依旧。
6月26日，以色列、黎巴嫩与美国在华盛顿签署一份三方框架协议，旨在为两国结束数十年的敌对状态铺路。根据美国国务院随后公布的文本，这份14点文件设定了“不可逆转的进展”目标，核心是黎巴嫩武装部队在经核实的非国家武装团体解除武装后，逐步恢复对全部领土的有效主权，以色列国防军则分阶段撤出黎巴嫩南部。协议还规定设立“试点区”，由黎军先行接管安全责任，并建立由美国推动的军事协调工作组，以监督落实。
各方立场呈现显著温差。华盛顿将协议定位为“持久和平与安全框架的起点”，国务卿鲁比奥宣布追加1亿美元人道援助及3000万美元对黎军报销，以提升其能力。以色列总理内塔尼亚胡在视频声明中强调，以军将继续留在黎南部“安全区”，直至真主党完全解除武装，并称该协议是对伊朗及其代理人的“重大打击”。黎巴嫩政府则视之为恢复主权和领土完整的第一步，总统奥恩感谢特朗普政府斡旋，总理萨拉姆表示目标是以色列从全部黎领土撤出。然而，真主党领导人卡西姆同日要求以色列“无条件完全撤出”，该组织议员法德拉拉警告，协议可能将黎巴嫩拖入内战。
协议文本明确，黎巴嫩政府承诺重建国家对武力的垄断，实现所有非国家武装团体的“完全、可核查的解除武装”，并确保其不再拥有任何军事或安全角色。以色列则声明其在黎军事行动“完全是对非国家武装团体攻击的回应”，并宣布对黎巴嫩没有领土野心。双方还同意立即成立工作组，起草全面和平与安全协定。值得注意的是，黎巴嫩政府重申其安全部队对国防负有排他责任，拒绝任何第三方代表其使用武力，这直接针对真主党长期扮演的“抵抗”角色。
该框架是华盛顿主导的五轮直接谈判的产物，背景是3月2日真主党为报复伊朗最高领袖哈梅内伊遇刺而向以色列发射火箭弹，引发以军大规模空袭和地面入侵，导致逾4200人死亡、百万人流离失所。协议签署前，地区已处于脆弱停火状态。中东地区分析人士认为，协议若落实，将削弱伊朗通过真主党投射影响力的能力，进而影响叙利亚、也门等地的力量平衡，这对依赖中东能源供应的亚洲经济体具有潜在影响。伊朗官方尚未正式回应，但接近革命卫队的媒体将协议描述为“将真主党送上祭坛的恶魔协议”。欧洲联盟此前表示愿支持执行。目前，协议仅为框架，具体安全附件尚待拟定，首批两个试点区的移交与核查工作即将启动，而真主党的武装存续仍是最大变数。
| 伊朗及相关媒体 | −0.80 | critical |
|---|---|---|
| 大西洋／英语圈媒体 | +0.30 | aligned |
| 阿拉伯黎凡特—马格里布媒体 | −0.20 | neutral |
We, the Iranian nation, have upheld our end of the ceasefire, but the United States has once again shown its true colors by launching an unprovoked attack on our soil. This aggression will not go unanswered, and the world must see who is the real obstacle to peace.
The narrative inverts the blame by framing the US response as an unprovoked escalation, while ignoring Iran's prior attack on the cargo ship. It uses the language of victimhood to delegitimize the US action and rally domestic and international sympathy.
The Iranian bloc omits any mention of the Iranian drone attack on the M/V Ever Lovely that triggered the US strikes, as well as the fact that the US strikes were explicitly framed as a response to that attack. This omission is crucial to maintain the victim narrative.
The United States has shown restraint, but when Iran attacks commercial shipping in clear violation of the ceasefire, we have no choice but to respond decisively. Our strikes are targeted and proportional, aimed at preventing further aggression and upholding the agreement.
The narrative frames the US action as a defensive, rule-based response, using the language of proportionality and enforcement. It omits the broader context of the conflict and presents the US as a neutral enforcer rather than a party to the agreement.
The atlantica bloc omits any mention of the US strikes hitting coastal radar sites and storage facilities that could be considered civilian infrastructure, as well as the Iranian perspective that the attack was unprovoked. It also does not mention that the US itself is a signatory to the framework agreement, not an impartial arbiter.
The Israeli military says it targeted terrorists, but the fact that this strike happened just days after the framework agreement was signed suggests that the ceasefire is already under strain. We watch and report, but the situation remains volatile.
The narrative uses a 'he said' style without endorsing any side, but the juxtaposition of the agreement and the strike creates an implicit narrative of fragility. It avoids direct criticism but lets the facts speak for themselves.
The arabo_levante_maghreb bloc omits any mention of the broader context of the conflict, such as the US-Iran strikes or the details of the framework agreement. It also does not include any Lebanese or Hezbollah perspective on the airstrike, which would likely be more critical.