Ceasefire politics: How regional pressure and US intervention brought a fragile truce to Lebanon

Report by Petra Abou Haidar, English adaptation by Yasmine Jaroudi

The ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel has triggered a wave of political claims, with multiple sides rushing to take credit for halting the war. 

From Iran to the Arab states and the United States, each has pointed to its role. The reality behind the truce reflects a convergence of overlapping efforts rather than a single decision.

At the center of the final decision was U.S. President Donald Trump, who ultimately pushed for the ceasefire and exerted direct pressure on Israel to halt operations. According to political accounts, Israel had initially resisted ending the war, seeking to separate the Lebanese front from the broader U.S.-Iran confrontation and continue its campaign against Hezbollah.

Before Washington's decisive move, Iran had already inserted Lebanon into its negotiations with the United States. 

After days of discussions, Tehran secured Lebanon's inclusion in a broader understanding, a development that coincided with heightened regional tension, including moves related to the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri was reportedly informed of the impending ceasefire by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf shortly before its announcement.

At the same time, a group of regional powers—including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey—moved to influence the outcome. These countries, wary of both the escalation of Iranian influence and the risks of a broader sectarian conflict, sought to balance the equation by engaging diplomatically and preventing any single actor from dominating the scene.

Saudi Arabia played a particularly active role through direct communications, while Egypt also applied pressure, notably during high-level contacts in Washington. Messages relayed through diplomatic channels underscored the urgency of reaching a ceasefire.

Internally, the Lebanese state also contributed to the shift. Diplomatic engagement led by Lebanon's ambassador in Washington signaled readiness to enter negotiations with Israel, provided a ceasefire was secured. This position, later reinforced by President Joseph Aoun, gave Washington additional leverage in pressing Israel, framing de-escalation as a gateway to potential talks.

Discussions on the next phase have already begun. Aoun and Prime Minister officials held meetings to assess post-ceasefire readiness and outline Lebanon's approach to negotiations. 

Meanwhile, U.S. envoy Tom Barrack noted that key actors, including Hezbollah and Iran, remain outside the formal negotiation framework, calling for a separate track that does not involve military elimination.

Despite the announcement, the ceasefire has shown signs of fragility, with violations reported almost immediately. Israeli actions on the ground suggest an attempt to impose new rules, including the establishment of what it calls a "yellow line" security zone in South Lebanon, where it intends to continue military operations.

As the situation evolves, the truce's durability remains uncertain. The key question now is how Hezbollah will respond to ongoing violations, and whether the Lebanese state can navigate the delicate balance between containing escalation and turning a shaky ceasefire into a lasting end to the conflict.