How Lebanon got sidelined from the US-Iran ceasefire

The announcement of a 2-week ceasefire between the United States (US) and Iran marks a critical turning point in a conflict that has rapidly expanded across the Middle East. Brokered through Pakistani mediation, the agreement is intended to halt hostilities and create a pathway toward a broader diplomatic settlement.

While global attention has focused on the immediate de-escalation between Washington and Tehran, the implications for Lebanon are profound. As a frontline arena of this confrontation, Lebanon is now caught between promises of including it in the aforementioned ceasefire and Israeli persistence of its exclusion.

Understanding the US-Iran ceasefire agreement

The ceasefire agreement represents a temporary but significant pause in a war that had threatened to spiral into a full-scale regional confrontation. The deal, reached just hours before a potential escalation as US president Donald Trump’s deadline neared its end, hinges on reciprocal concessions: Washington and even Tel Aviv agreed to suspend planned military strikes, while Iran committed to reopening the Strait of Hormuz; although it later backtracked as the war persisted in Lebanon.

This truce is explicitly time-bound, lasting 2 weeks, and is designed to facilitate negotiations toward a longer-term agreement. Despite optimistic rhetoric from both sides, the ceasefire remains conditional and fragile. Key issues, including Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missiles program, regional influence (notably through its allied non-state actors), and sanctions relief, remain unresolved and are expected to dominate upcoming talks.

Furthermore, the agreement is also politically contested. On the one hand, the issue of Iran’s right to uranium enrichment remains problematic, as the US asserted that the agreement does not stipulate such right, while Tehran persists in retaining this fundamental right (according to Iranian claims, this was clearly outlined in 6th clause of the framework). On the other hand, while some officials (including in Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi and Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, as well as Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shebbaz Sharif) suggest it extends to all theaters of conflict, including Lebanon, others, particularly Israel, have rejected this interpretation. This ambiguity highlights a fundamental limitation of the ceasefire: it is not a comprehensive regional settlement but rather a narrowly defined temporary truce, leaving the Lebanese front exposed to continued escalation.

Lebanon outside the deal

The most consequential aspect of the ceasefire for Lebanon is that the country is not included. Washington’s priority appears to have been containing direct confrontation with Tehran, particularly in maritime zones critical to global energy flows.

In doing so, it effectively distinguished between high-intensity state-to-state conflict and what it views as lower-intensity proxy engagements. Rather than being “shielded by its alignment with Iran,” as Hezbollah and the “Axis of Resistance” often promoted, Lebanon has found itself bearing the costs of a conflict from which others are stepping back. Even as Iran threatened to withdraw from the ceasefire agreement if Lebanon is not included, it has yet to fire missiles against the US or Israel, while it is also posed to conduct direct negotiations with Washington tomorrow in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials have made clear that while they support the pause in strikes against Iran, their campaign against Hezbollah will proceed independently. In practical terms, it means that while Washington and Tehran step back from direct confrontation, Israel retains full freedom to continue military operations inside Lebanon.

Israeli escalation and “Operation Eternal Darkness”

Within hours since the ceasefire was announced, Israel launched one of its most extensive military operations across Lebanon since the outbreak of hostilities, on 2 March 2026, reportedly targeting dozens of locations associated with Hezbollah. The operation, code-named “Eternal Darkness,” marked a significant escalation in both scale and intensity, with over 100 strikes in 10 minutes hitting Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and southern Lebanon, resulting in 182 fatalities and 890 injuries; the largest and most significant operation since the pager device attacks in September 2024.

This development reinforced Israeli assertions that the ceasefire does not apply to Lebanon. From Tel Aviv’s perspective, the campaign against Hezbollah remains an independent and ongoing objective, unaffected by broader diplomatic arrangements with Iran. The timing of the strikes, so soon after the truce announcement, sent a clear message: while one front may be paused, another remains fully active.

For Lebanon, this creates a paradox: a ceasefire that may bring calm elsewhere while war continues unhindered on its territory. It has left the country effectively isolated and designated as an open battlefield within an ongoing armed conflict, even as broader regional tensions ease.

Hezbollah’s role and the cost of alignment

Lebanon’s exclusion is closely tied to Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflict; which US President Donald Trump clearly proclaimed. By initiating the current armed conflict with Israel in support of Iran, the group has entrenched the country within the so-called “Axis of Resistance,” exposing Lebanon to retaliatory strikes and reducing its ability to claim neutrality in regional dynamics.

From a US and Israeli standpoint, Hezbollah represents a legitimate military target whose activities justify continued operations regardless of diplomatic developments elsewhere. Statements from American officials, including President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu, have explicitly linked Lebanon’s exclusion to the presence and actions of the group, framing ongoing strikes as part of a broader effort to degrade Iran’s regional network.

This dynamic leaves Lebanon in a precarious position. While the state itself is not a party to the ceasefire negotiations, it bears the brunt of their limitations, with little ability to influence outcomes or shield its territory from escalation.

International responses and diplomatic pressures

The exclusion of Lebanon has not gone entirely uncontested. European actors and regional stakeholders have reportedly pushed for a broader interpretation of the ceasefire; one that encompasses all active fronts, including Lebanon. However, these efforts have thus far failed to alter the agreement’s scope. 

At the same time, Washington appears poised to leverage the ceasefire to exert additional pressure on Beirut and even Tehran in the upcoming US-Iran negotiations tomorrow; attempting to translate tactical gains into longer-term strategic outcomes.

Hence, the US-Iran ceasefire offers a moment of cautious optimism, but its implications for Lebanon and Hezbollah remain uncertain. As a temporary and contested agreement, it provides an opportunity for de-escalation without guaranteeing it; which will mainly depend on the upcoming US-Iran negotiations tomorrow. For Lebanon, this means enduring the worst of both worlds: continued war without the diplomatic protections afforded to other fronts. The country thus remains caught between larger powers, and its fate shaped by decisions made elsewhere.