Israeli officials say troops will remain in southern Lebanon, complicating Tehran’s demand that the war there end as part of a broader agreement with Washington
Israel has said its forces will remain in southern Lebanon, a position that threatens to complicate U.S.-Iran peace efforts aimed at ending a wider regional conflict and stabilizing one of the Middle East’s most volatile frontlines.
Defence Minister Israel Katz said Israeli troops would not withdraw from the security zone in southern Lebanon, arguing that their continued presence is necessary to protect communities in northern Israel from Hezbollah attacks. His comments reinforced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position that Israel intends to preserve military control over areas it seized during the war.
The announcement comes at a sensitive moment for diplomacy. The United States and Iran have been pursuing an interim arrangement intended to reduce tensions after months of confrontation, including fighting involving Israel, Hezbollah and Iranian-backed forces. Tehran has insisted that an end to the war in Lebanon, including an Israeli withdrawal from occupied areas in the south, is a central condition for any broader settlement.
Iranian officials have argued that the conflict cannot be considered over while Israeli troops remain on Lebanese territory. That position has placed the Lebanon file at the center of the U.S.-Iran talks, turning a local battlefield into a test of whether Washington can deliver on commitments that also depend on Israeli decisions.
Israel, however, says security concerns override diplomatic pressure. Officials in Jerusalem argue that Hezbollah remains capable of launching rockets, drones and cross-border attacks, and that the Lebanese state has not yet demonstrated it can prevent the group from rearming or returning to positions near the border.
The dispute has exposed a major weakness in the emerging peace framework: not all of the actors needed to implement it appear to be aligned. Iran wants Lebanon included in the agreement. The United States wants to contain regional escalation. Israel wants freedom of action against Hezbollah. Lebanon, meanwhile, is seeking the restoration of its sovereignty in the south while avoiding a renewed full-scale war.
A U.S.-backed proposal under discussion would allow Lebanese army units to assume control of selected “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon, with Israeli forces transferring limited areas in phases. But Israeli officials have made clear they are not prepared to abandon the broader buffer zone without stronger security guarantees.
For Lebanon, the continued presence of Israeli troops is politically explosive. Hezbollah has rejected any arrangement that leaves Israeli forces in place, while Lebanese officials have argued that full withdrawal remains essential to restoring national authority. The risk is that a partial ceasefire becomes a frozen conflict, with both sides claiming compliance while preparing for the next round of fighting.
The timing is also difficult for Washington. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been touring Gulf capitals to defend the administration’s Iran initiative and reassure regional allies that the deal will not strengthen Tehran at their expense. Israel’s refusal to withdraw from Lebanon gives critics of the agreement another argument: that the plan may be too fragile to resolve the conflicts it claims to address.
The Lebanon dispute now threatens to become one of the most consequential obstacles to the U.S.-Iran peace track. Without Israeli withdrawal, Tehran may claim that Washington cannot enforce the agreement. Without security guarantees, Israel is unlikely to leave. And without a credible path to Lebanese control of the south, the ceasefire may remain vulnerable to collapse.
For now, Israel’s message is clear: its troops are staying. That decision may satisfy domestic security demands, but it also risks undermining the diplomatic effort to turn a temporary pause in fighting into a durable regional settlement.
