Lebanon's Many Equations of Unknowns in Islamabad's Controversial MoU

TEHRAN (Defapress) - Despite the reconciliation processes and recent efforts to reach a final agreement within the framework of the Islamabad MoU, the Lebanese front, as one of the most sensitive areas of Iran’s regional war, is still a war zone.

At the same time as the understanding between the US and Iran and the beginning of direct talks between the Zionist regime and the Lebanese government, Israel continues its attacks in southern Lebanon. The MoU between Iran and the US, in addition to sensitive issues such as the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear program, and the release of Iranian assets, includes clauses on establishing a ceasefire in Lebanon and a sustainable peace process after it, which still has its own complexities. Tehran has emphasized the inclusion of the Lebanese file and the end of the Israeli occupation of the country in this understanding. In contrast, Tel Aviv seeks to exert pressure and exclude Lebanon from these equations, which is clearly visible in the recent statements of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, attributing the destruction and occupation in Lebanon to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah, which has always cited Israel’s occupation of the border hills and Shebaa Farms as the reason for its resistance, as well as its long-term occupation of southern Lebanon until 2000, considers any disarmament to be conditional on the end of the Israeli occupation and defines itself not as a militia force but as a Resistance movement. After Operation Al-Aqsa Storm, Israel expanded its occupation in southern Lebanon, and although the subsequent ceasefire agreement stopped direct clashes, the Zionist regime added five more strategic hills to its occupation of Shebaa Farms and Kafr Shuba. This move is seen as an attempt to link the occupied territories from Gaza to the Lebanon-Syria axis and establish hegemony through the actors it supports. From this perspective, Israel is not only seeking to end its occupations within the framework of regional hegemony based on Jewish fundamentalism, but also seeks to consolidate and expand them. Israel’s efforts to change the traditional status quo between Hezbollah and itself in southern Lebanon and northern occupied Palestine have intensified in a more radical way after the Gaza genocide and the start of the Iranian regional war. For this reason, by announcing the plan for the occupied zone of southern Lebanon and justifying it with the presence of Hezbollah, Israel emphasizes that there will be no return to the conditions before October 7.

In this framework, last April, Israel declared a 10-kilometer-deep area in southern Lebanon as a “front defense line” and introduced it as a buffer zone with Hezbollah. The Zionist regime did not stop at this area, but also expanded its military operations to the Litani River, which is recognized as a UN de-escalation zone, and then advanced the occupation to the Zahrani River, 50 kilometers south of Beirut. Thus, the Zionist regime, which is also creating a threat in Syria by expanding its influence on Mount Hermon and approaching Damascus, has also challenged the other important capital of the region by expanding its occupation beyond the Zahran River.

The traces of the new order that Israel is trying to achieve through airstrikes can be seen in the pattern of increasing and sustained occupation in the region.

It seems that to prevent a repeat of the trend that occurred in Syria, which led to the loss of a significant part of Iran's influence, position, and influence, Tehran considers the Israeli occupation of Lebanon to be at least as vital as a direct threat against itself and demands a return to the traditional situation in this country. In other words, the issue is not limited to the deep-rooted relations between Iran and Hezbollah. Iran sees Hezbollah as an important deterrent and limiter against Israel on Lebanese soil. The weakening or collapse of this axis, as the recent conflicts have shown, directly exposes Tehran, as the center of the Axis of Resistance, to an existential threat. Therefore, Iran considers its security to be closely intertwined with the survival of Hezbollah.

On the other hand, given that Israel has no intention of abandoning its desired order, the prospect of determining the “new rules of the game” by the parties remains unclear.

Despite heavy losses, Hezbollah, especially with the use of FPV drones in recent months, has created a significant challenge to the occupation of southern Lebanon and is influencing the equations on the ground. In this direction, Hezbollah, which has gained morale from this resistance, seems to be showing more capacity over time to slow down Israel’s advance and increase its costs on the Lebanese front.

In light of these fundamental contradictions and conflicts, the path of direct negotiations and dialogues between the Lebanese government and Israel is clearly tied to the dynamics of the field conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, as well as the process of understanding between Iran and the United States. Here, Israel is trying to blame Hezbollah for the occupation and conflicts in Lebanon. However, given that Israel's occupation policies against Lebanon existed before Hezbollah emerged, and despite negotiations with the Lebanese government, the Zionist regime has challenged not only territorial sovereignty but also sovereign rights in maritime areas by publishing various maps. It seems that Netanyahu's statements in Lebanese public opinion seek to strengthen the atmosphere of hostility towards Hezbollah and Iran and provide legitimacy for its policies.

Despite the agreement on the delimitation of maritime zones, which was signed with the approval of Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, the inclusion of Lebanese maritime zones in the map of Israel’s front defense line shows that the occupation policies are not limited to land alone and that this issue must be assessed in the context of Israel’s occupation practices from Palestine to Syria, along with competition over maritime zones in the Eastern Mediterranean, energy resources, and regional polarization.

Finally, on the Lebanese front, which is considered one of the most challenging areas for Islamabad’s Mou to create a new status quo and rules of the game, Israeli attacks continue despite ongoing Israeli-Lebanese talks. In the meantime, it should not be overlooked that the Netanyahu government, by using Hezbollah as an excuse to occupy and destroy Lebanon, seeks to establish a hierarchy centered on Israel in the Levant and impose chaos on other actors, within the framework of its hegemonic goals.