By Hannan Hussain
United States President Joe Biden's administration is ramping up efforts to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
US mediator Amos Hochstein recently held talks with Nabih Berri, Lebanon's Hezbollah-allied parliamentary speaker, on a US-drafted ceasefire proposal that seeks to end months of fighting. Both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government have given their conditional approval to the truce, and Hochstein is now in Israel to try and see a deal through.
However, continued escalations pose a mounting challenge for US mediation efforts. Israel continues to attack eastern and southern Lebanon amid negotiations, and wants the "freedom to act" against Hezbollah in any potential agreement.
Meanwhile, the Iran-backed group claimed its deepest missile attack in Israel in more than a year, and has put the onus on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to lay the groundwork for de-escalation.
So can Washington's last-ditch ceasefire efforts really bear fruit? Here's what stands in the way.
Contrasting interests
The Biden administration appears overwhelmingly focused on protecting Israeli interests as opposed to promoting genuine de-escalation in the Middle East. This challenges the credibility of ongoing negotiations.
Consider Washington's push to re-implement UN Security Council resolution 1701. It calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah and rejects unauthorised armed presence near the Israel-Lebanon border.
Though the deal helped end the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict, Washington shows few signs of prioritising other key provisions, such as the end of all Israeli offensive military operations at its northern border.
Washington playing favourites helps to explain Israel's defiance of peace. Netanyahu has vowed to attack Lebanon despite a truce, and deadly airstrikes in eastern Lebanon suggest continued aggression.
In order for Washington to prevent future hostilities, it must take into account Lebanon's goal of reining in Israel's attacks on its territory. After all, Israel has a history of using self-defence to justify strikes on Lebanon.
This includes the dozens of strikes that pushed the two countries towards an open war in August. There are also fears in Lebanon that Israel could use some ceasefire provisions to stage future attacks against the country.
Rather than allaying these fears, Washington continues to prioritise Israel's "right to self defence" in its draft proposal. If left unchanged, this could be seen as an implicit endorsement of Israel's demand to strike Hezbollah upon will, raising questions about US neutrality in present mediation efforts.
Disarming Hezbollah
Second, attempts to disarm Hezbollah carry limited utility for peace. Implementation of UNSC resolution 1701 demands that all armed actors, including Hezbollah, relinquish their weapons in a bid to promote a full cessation of hostilities.
However, in the years since the resolution was initially enforced, Hezbollah did not disarm. In fact it emerged as a well-armed force with a sizable weapons arsenal, funded and supplied primarily by Iran. The United States needs to accept the reality that Hezbollah is here to stay, and that its approval is critical for any truce to take effect.
But ground realities suggest the US is charting its own course. For instance, Washington wants the Lebanese army to confront Hezbollah in the wake of a ceasefire. This is a move that lacks traction within Lebanon but aligns with Israeli demands to prevent the group from strengthening its forces.
If a truce materialised, the Lebanese army may need to deploy thousands of troops in the south. But it would try to avoid confrontation with Hezbollah, whose military and political presence give it considerable sway in the state.
Thus, the real test for US mediation is to look beyond disarmament and confrontation. Can it extract tangible ceasefire guarantees from Israel, including an accelerated troop withdrawal and recognition of Lebanon's right to defend itself?
Washington's challenges run deep: even if Israel provided these assurances, there is good reason that Lebanon would remain sceptical of a truce.
There's also the substantial physical and psychological damage Israel has inflicted on Lebanon these past several months. At least 3,500 people have been killed in Israeli air strikes, and more than a million have been displaced.
The explosion of pagers in September has added to significant psychological trauma among the population, which has already been struggling with mental health disorders.
Israel has inflicted more damage on Lebanese buildings in two weeks than what occurred during 12 months of cross-border fighting. The resulting anger and grief have weighed heavily on the masses, who will likely refuse to give such atrocities an easy pass.
Political factors
Another hurdle to peace involves political motivations. Israeli officials are scrambling to secure a ceasefire because they wish to court the favour of US President-elect Donald Trump.
From their viewpoint, a potential deal would bolster Trump's promise to end the war in Lebanon. In return, he would help Israel enlist US support for more normalisation agreements with Arab states.
Recent talks between Trump and Ron Dermer, Netanyahu's minister of strategic affairs, make clear that Israel's principal motivation is to appease the incoming administration, as opposed to ceasing hostilities with Hezbollah.
Israeli attacks on the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) are another limiting factor. The military has continued to attack their coordinates, and stand accused of "deliberate and direct destruction of clearly identifiable UNIFIL property" in southern Lebanon.
The essence of a truce is to ensure both sides comply and reciprocate in good faith. But Israel's raging airstrikes in Lebanon and maximalist demands weaken the case for optimism.
This is important because the US is keen to strike a ceasefire deal that includes an expanded UNIFIL role in monitoring the truce, and preventing violations from all sides.
But those efforts face headwinds if Israel continues to undermine UNIFIL's presence near the "Blue Line," a UN-designated withdrawal line between Lebanon and Israel.
It also, forces peacekeepers to evacuate from their positions in border areas. For a truce to hold, Washington needs to ensure Israel's complete military withdrawal from southern Lebanon. That remains a distant outcome if UNIFIL, tasked with confirming Israeli withdrawal, remains under constant threat.
Thus understood, challenges outweigh opportunities in Washington's last-ditch ceasefire efforts. The essence of a truce is to ensure both sides comply and reciprocate in good faith. But Israel's raging air strikes in Lebanon and maximalist demands weaken the case for optimi
The author, Hannan Hussain is a Senior Expert at Initiate Futures, an Islamabad-based policy think tank and author. He was a Fulbright Scholar of international security at the University of Maryland, and has consulted for the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington. Hussain's work has been published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, and the Express Tribune (partner of the International New York Times).
Disclaimer: The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of TRT Afrika.
➤ Click here to follow our WhatsApp channel for more stories.
