Can diplomacy still prevent a wider war?

While some have argued that the possibility of a U.S.-Iran agreement could lead to de-escalation or even a complete halt to the war in Lebanon, Israel has once again insisted on separating the two tracks, expanding its military operations in both the country’s south and its deeper interior.

The key question remains: are international initiatives still capable of containing the war and preventing its expansion, or have facts imposed on the ground already surpassed diplomacy’s ability to restrain them?

Israel expands military operations deeper into Lebanon

In recent days, Israel has broadened the scope of its targets and military operations deep inside southern Lebanon. Israeli Prime Minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will continue to control areas it considers of strategic importance in its confrontation with Hezbollah. There is also growing discussion about plans to establish a wider security zone inside Lebanese territory, potentially extending 30 to 40 kilometres north of the border.

In this context, Israeli forces advanced in the vicinity of Deir Seryan, Qantara, Taybeh, and the Wadi al-Suluki, while simultaneously intensifying pressure on the towns of Arnoun, Yahmar al-Shqif, and Zawtar. They also crossed the Litani River and established positions in what are considered some of the deepest points of Israeli penetration into Lebanese territory since the withdrawal in 2000. At the same time, Israel has intensified efforts to disrupt transportation and communication routes connecting different sectors of southern Lebanon. Heavy strikes have targeted roads linking Nabatieh, Marjayoun, and Hasbaya, particularly around the strategic Khardali corridor.

In addition, the seizure of Beaufort Castle (Qalaat al-Shaqif) marked a significant military and symbolic development.

In an interview with The Beiruter, former MP Wehbe Qatisha stated that control of the castle provides a strategic foothold that enables Israel to expand its influence toward the Ali al-Taher heights and the surrounding hills, granting it a tactical advantage in terms of overseeing and controlling the area. He added that the region located between the Litani and Zahrani rivers is more conducive to military operations than the area south of the Litani, where the rugged terrain poses significant challenges for ground forces. By establishing positions in these locations, Israel gains greater capabilities for maneuvering, surveillance, and control over vast areas of southern Lebanon.

Should the Israeli military expansion continue, Qatisha believes that Hezbollah may find itself compelled to concentrate a larger portion of its forces and infrastructure in Beirut’s southern suburbs and the Bekaa region, which could limit its freedom of movement and deployment across southern Lebanon.

The U.S. initiative: Efforts constrained by political and field obstacles

In light of these developments, a renewed American effort has emerged to contain the crisis. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio held contacts with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and PM Netanyahu in an attempt to establish a preliminary framework for de-escalation.

Washington proposed that Hezbollah halt all attacks against Israel as a first step, while Israel would, in return, refrain from expanding its military operations, particularly in Beirut and its southern suburbs. The U.S. administration views this step as a potential entry point toward a gradual ceasefire and the groundwork for broader understandings, especially amid ongoing negotiations between Lebanon and Israel scheduled to continue in Washington.

However, the initiative quickly encountered political obstacles. The proposals did not receive the required support from Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, who insisted that Israel must first halt all military operations to ensure Hezbollah’s commitment to stopping its attacks. The Israeli response later came in the form of a direct warning of possibly targeting Beirut’s southern suburbs.

This reflects the core of the disagreement between the two sides. Israel and the U.S. argue that Hezbollah must be the first to stop its attacks, while Hezbollah and its allies maintain that no ceasefire can take hold unless Israel fully halts its military operations.

French diplomatic push at the United Nations

As the situation on the ground deteriorates, France has emerged as one of the key international actors seeking to contain the escalation. French President Emmanuel Macron has expressed rejection of the ongoing military expansion in southern Lebanon, stressing that there is no justification for the continuation of such operations.

Following Israel’s control of Beaufort Castle and the expansion of its ground operations, Paris requested an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to discuss recent developments and their implications for regional stability.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated that France recognizes “Israel’s right, like any state, to defend itself against Hezbollah’s attacks,” but added that “nothing justifies the continuation of Israeli military operations in Lebanon and its growing incursions into Lebanese territory.” He described these actions as a “major mistake,” particularly as they contradict Israel’s commitments under the ceasefire agreement in force since 17 April 2026, as well as international law.

Thus, the French move at the Security Council reflects growing international concern that the current confrontation could evolve into a broader regional conflict.

Lebanon between the pressures of war and commitment to diplomacy

In contrast, the Lebanese state finds itself facing increasingly complex challenges. President Joseph Aoun and PM Nawaf Salam remain committed to the path of negotiation as the only viable and least costly option to end the crisis and achieve a ceasefire.

However, Israeli military operations are deepening economic, humanitarian, and even cultural damage, while imposing new facts on the ground, thereby limiting the prospects for any diplomatic breakthrough. At the same time, Hezbollah’s continued military engagement restricts the state’s ability to maneuver politically and diplomatically, particularly in terms of asserting sovereignty over all its territory and fulfilling its domestic and international commitments.

Nevertheless, former MP Wehbe Qatisha believes that the continuation of negotiations during wartime is not unusual, as political contacts often proceed in parallel with military operations. However, he stressed that the balance of power on the ground remains a key factor in determining each side’s ability to impose its conditions or strengthen its negotiating position.

Is de-escalation still possible?

The future of diplomatic efforts to reduce escalation depends largely on developments on the ground in the coming weeks. So far, neither side appears ready to make the concessions necessary to reach a sustainable ceasefire.

Israel believes it is achieving significant battlefield gains and seeks to strengthen its positions before agreeing to any settlement. This approach is further influenced by electoral considerations and Netanyahu’s need to present tangible achievements to Israeli society in order to maintain his political standing. Hezbollah, on the other hand, continues to rely on broader regional calculations and on Iran’s ability to influence the course of events, amid ongoing efforts to reach a U.S-Iran agreement.

In this context, the prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough appear limited in the near term, despite continued negotiations and international mediation efforts. The gap between the demands of the two sides remains wide, with little indication of political will to make mutual concessions.

Ultimately, military logic continues to prevail over political settlement at this stage, placing Lebanon in a highly dangerous phase that may persist before any genuine opportunity emerges to halt the war and restore stability.