Barsam Mohammadi \u2013 Regional Affairs Analyst<\/p>\n
In the final days of June 2026, Washington hosted the signing of a trilateral framework agreement between Lebanon, the Zionist regime, and the United States, in order, according to the White House, to end months of border clashes and to take \u201ca step toward peace.\u201d<\/p>\n
The reality is that any realistic analysis of the provisions of this agreement, taking into account the explicit statements of officials of the Zionist regime, challenges the claim that it is peace-producing and raises serious doubts regarding the fate of Lebanon\u2019s sovereignty and territorial integrity. An agreement that cannot guarantee the complete and unconditional withdrawal of occupying forces is not only not a step toward peace, but rather results in the continuation and even institutionalization of occupation in a new and deceptive form.<\/p>\n
What is occurring today in southern Lebanon is a bitter repetition of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; a resolution whose promises of partial and conditional withdrawal effectively led to the consolidation of occupation and the transformation of border areas into security and buffer zones, and never resulted in the full liberation of occupied territories.<\/p>\n
Conditional occupation; a peace that weakens Lebanon\u2019s sovereignty<\/strong><\/p>\n The fundamental problem of the Washington agreement lies in the imposition of a dangerous condition that links the withdrawal of Zionist regime forces to the disarmament of Hezbollah. This approach, explicitly declared by the prime minister and war minister of the Zionist regime, effectively means transferring Lebanon\u2019s sovereign rights to an actor outside the control of the central government. Under this agreement, occupying forces will remain in \u201cmost parts\u201d of southern areas, and their withdrawal is contingent upon decisions or developments that are fundamentally beyond the Lebanese state\u2019s control.<\/p>\n This condition not only constitutes a clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a UN member state, but also places Lebanon in a position where the fate of its territory is tied to the military and security calculations of a group that is itself a principal party to the conflict.<\/p>\n Hezbollah, as an actor with a broad political and social base within Lebanon\u2019s power structure, has described this agreement as \u201cillegitimate\u201d and \u201chumiliating.\u201d This reaction indicates that such an arrangement, instead of resolving disputes, will deepen internal divisions. An agreement lacking national consensus and excluding or weakening one of the main political and social currents will not only fail to bring peace but will inflame internal disagreements and further endanger Lebanon\u2019s fragile stability.<\/p>\n Legal and security consequences of the Washington agreement<\/strong><\/p>\n Beyond the violation of sovereignty, this agreement once again lends legitimacy to the outdated model of \u201csecurity zones\u201d and \u201cbuffer belts,\u201d which carries a painful historical record in southern Lebanon. The implicit recognition of a long-term Zionist regime presence in parts of southern Lebanon effectively amounts to a new partitioning of the country\u2019s territory and the selective institutionalization of occupation, a situation in which the Zionist regime reserves for itself the right to redefine borders and security zones.<\/p>\n The harsh field reality also confirms this claim; Zionist regime airstrikes continued in the days following the signing of the agreement, indicating that the aggressive and occupation-based nature of this regime has not changed. Therefore, this agreement has not only failed to create an effective security shield for Lebanon, but by normalizing the military presence of the enemy, it has introduced new and more comprehensive threats against the country.<\/p>\n It is necessary to note that, from the perspective of international law, any agreement that contradicts the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions and disregards the territorial integrity of a state lacks legal legitimacy and cannot serve as a basis for a regional order. Insistence on the continuation of occupation, even in a deceptive form accompanied by political conditions, further exposes the illusion of peace and paves the way for subsequent crises.<\/p>\n The necessity of regional vigilance against the consequences of the agreement<\/strong><\/p>\n In this context, the role and position of regional countries are of special importance. The region today needs peace and stability more than ever, and historical experience has shown that the economic stability and national security of regional countries depend on maintaining stability across West Asia, from the Mediterranean to the Strait of Hormuz.<\/p>\n However, what is pursued in the Washington agreement is nothing but U.S. provocation aimed at continuing its hegemony and creating new regional divisions. Through this agreement, the United States seeks to keep the flames of conflict burning in Lebanon and its surroundings in order to manage security equations in favor of itself and the Zionist regime. Therefore, vigilance by Persian Gulf littoral states against these schemes is not an option but a strategic necessity. Alignment with this American approach, which under the guise of peace undermines regional stability and imposes heavy military and security costs on the regional economy, will be detrimental to all countries in the region.<\/p>\n A dynamic economy and the development prospects of regional countries require an environment free of tension and occupation, and any tolerance of secessionist and occupation-based projects will ultimately confront regional collective security with irreparable challenges.<\/p>\n Lebanon, with its historical background and distinguished geographical position, has always played an influential role in regional dynamics, and its multicultural identity and coexistence represent a valuable asset for all neighbors. However, this role must not come at the expense of ignoring its fundamental sovereign rights and territorial integrity. The legitimacy of any international agreement depends on adherence to justice and recognized legal principles, and sustainable peace can never be built upon injustice and the continuation of occupation.<\/p>\n The only reliable and rational path to stability is the complete and unconditional withdrawal of occupying forces from all Lebanese territories and the restoration of full sovereignty of the Lebanese state over its entire land. Any deviation from this obvious principle will not only darken Lebanon\u2019s future but will also spread its security and economic consequences across the entire region and permanently undermine collective trust in international mechanisms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" SCFR Online \u2013 Opinion: The Washington trilateral agreement, by linking the end of occupation to political and security conditions, does not establish a sustainable peace; rather, it consolidates the occupation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":421311,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[13268,17,13427,12726],"tags":[22464,47279,30293,47278,47277,42369,35831,16438,47280,13078],"class_list":["post-421415","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-note","category-politics","category-strategic-perspective","category-10-en-2","tag-lebanese-hezbollah","tag-lebanon-peace-agreement","tag-lebanons-national-sovereignty","tag-middle-east-crisis","tag-occupation-of-southern-lebanon","tag-resolution-1701","tag-us-foreign-policy-en-3","tag-washington","tag-west-asian-security","tag---en"],"yoast_head":"\n