
黎以谈判第五轮开启,美伊平行机制引发主权争议
华盛顿主持下的黎巴嫩-以色列直接会谈进入第五轮,但同步运行的美伊-卡塔尔-巴基斯坦“冲突管理小组”因排除以色列而引发美国内部分歧与以色列强烈不满。
第五轮黎巴嫩-以色列直接谈判于6月23日在华盛顿启动,美方官员称目标为“永久结束暴力循环”,推动两国以主权国家身份达成全面和平与安全协议。然而,此轮会谈的议程正被一条平行轨道所笼罩:根据美伊在瑞士卢塞恩达成的谅解备忘录,一个由美国、伊朗、卡塔尔和巴基斯坦组成的“降级机制”正在筹建,旨在监督黎巴嫩停火并协调后续安排,但该机制明确将以色列排除在外。美国国务院官员对“天空新闻阿拉伯”表示,谈判将沿军事与政治双轨进行,参与方名单维持不变。
华盛顿内部对这一双轨架构出现明显裂痕。据黎巴嫩媒体援引美方消息人士称,国务卿鲁比奥与驻黎大使力主强化黎以双边进程,认为这是解除真主党武装、恢复黎巴嫩主权的唯一可行路径;而副总统万斯的团队则倾向通过美伊直接安排约束真主党,换取以色列有限的安全保证,但不触及黎巴嫩完全主权。总统特朗普据称对黎巴嫩问题缺乏耐心,形容其“细节小、动静大”,并对以色列总理内塔尼亚胡的军事行动节奏公开表达失望,这加大了达成某种突破的压力。
以色列方面对此反应强烈。以驻美大使莱特向希伯来媒体警告,谈判正滑向“列车事故”,因为焦点已从“将伊朗赶出黎巴嫩并解除真主党武装”转移。以外长萨尔重申,真主党是黎巴嫩主权与以色列安全的“首要障碍”。以总理、防长与总参谋长联合声明称,以军将继续在黎南部单方面划设的“安全区”内“坚决行动”。黎巴嫩总统奥恩则在接到万斯与鲁比奥电话后表示,黎方“只接受以色列占领的终结与所有外部监护的垮台”,并要求在本轮谈判中获得以军撤离的“合理时间表”。黎方官员对路透社坦言,双方信任基础薄弱,对取得实质进展持怀疑态度。
美伊卢塞恩备忘录于6月18日由特朗普与伊朗总统佩泽什基安电子签署后生效,其中包含尊重黎巴嫩主权与领土完整的条款,并促成自上周五以来最长的战斗间歇。然而,该协议被广泛视为强化了伊朗及其盟友真主党的地位,削弱了黎巴嫩国家政府的谈判筹码。真主党公开拒绝黎以直接谈判,转而押注伊朗主导的轨道。中东观察人士指出,美伊在黎巴嫩问题上的合作可能重塑地区力量平衡:对中国而言,伊朗作为“一带一路”关键节点与能源供应方的稳定至关重要,但黎巴嫩主权受损可能加剧区域碎片化,影响中国在黎维和与重建参与,并波及地中海东岸的能源地缘格局。
目前,美方主导的停火监督机制已在中央司令部旗下重启,但新设的“冲突管理小组”的运作方式与构成仍在审查中。法国总统马克龙与奥恩通话,讨论联黎部队2027年初任务结束后的安排,并有意推动欧洲国家维持国际军事存在。第五轮谈判预计持续至6月25日,美方承诺“很快公布更多细节”,但黎以双边进程与美伊多边机制之间的张力,将使任何协议的可执行性面临持续考验。
| 阿拉伯黎凡特—马格里布媒体 | +0.10 | neutral |
|---|---|---|
| 大西洋/英语圈媒体 | −0.30 | critical |
| 以色列媒体 | 0.00 | neutral |
| 伊朗及相关媒体 | +0.70 | aligned |
The Lebanese government claims diplomatic success in averting a new war, while denouncing Israeli violations and warning against US-Iran bilateral deals that ignore Lebanese interests.
The narrative builds on a contrast between Lebanese sovereignty and external interference, using official statements to legitimize the government's position and delegitimize Israeli actions.
The bloc omits that Hezbollah's disarmament is a central demand in negotiations and that the Lebanese government has limited control over the militias.
The United States imposes severe conditions on Iran, demanding thorough inspections and maintaining sanctions pressure, while Israel acts unilaterally to support Iranian dissidents.
Credibility is built through references to official US sources and international agency reports, presenting the US position as rational and fact-based, while the Iranian position is described as unreliable.
The bloc omits the perspective of the Lebanese government and the details of the fifth round of talks, focusing solely on US-Iran dynamics and Israeli actions.
Israel categorically denies any partial withdrawal from southern Lebanon, reaffirming its firm stance and the need for Hezbollah to honor its commitments.
The denial is presented as an objective fact, citing Israeli and Lebanese military sources to corroborate Israel's version, leaving no room for alternative interpretations.
The bloc omits the context of US-Iran talks and the possibility that a partial withdrawal was discussed as part of a broader deal.
Iran proclaims its victory in the conflict, attributing the end of hostilities to military resistance and diplomatic skill, and presents itself as the sole guarantor of regional stability.
The narrative uses an epic and self-congratulatory tone, linking the negotiating success to the power of the military field and the leadership of the Supreme Leader, creating an image of invincibility.
The bloc omits any mention of the role of the United States or Israel in the negotiations, and does not acknowledge the internal divisions in the US administration or Israel's exclusion from the talks.