Senior Israeli security officials assess that Iran and Hezbollah will seek to undermine the implementation of the framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon, viewing it as a significant diplomatic setback for both Tehran and Hezbollah. According to these officials, the agreement has yet to be translated into reality on the ground.
The central question is whether it can be implemented successfully, thereby effectively dismantling the principle of the “Unity of the Fronts,” which Iran has sought to impose on both the United States and Israel.
Although the details of the framework agreement and its implementation timetable have not been made public, senior political officials argue that, at the declaratory level, it represents a U.S.-led initiative that contradicts the recent U.S.–Iran memorandum of understanding.
It also weakens the policy approach associated with Vice President J.D. Vance while reinforcing the position championed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, namely that the Lebanese government is the sole sovereign authority in Lebanon and the only legitimate body entitled to determine the country’s future and its relationship with Israel, not Iran.
According to a senior political source, this effectively pulls the rug out from under Tehran’s strategy.
Through its memorandum of understanding with Washington, Iran sought to demonstrate that Lebanon is essentially a proxy state under its control through Hezbollah.
The framework agreement challenges that narrative by recognizing Beirut, rather than Tehran, as the legitimate decision-maker.
Senior security officials further argue that the agreement grants Israel American and Lebanese legitimacy to maintain its security buffer zone in southern Lebanon, established to protect Israeli communities along the northern border.
Under the agreement, Israel would retain control of the buffer zone until the entire area is demilitarized and Hezbollah is pushed north of the Litani River. Only after those conditions are met would Israel withdraw to the internationally recognized border.
The burden of proof, they say, now rests squarely on the Lebanese government and the Lebanese Armed Forces. The key question is whether the Lebanese military will, in fact, confront Hezbollah, remove its forces from the designated pilot areas, and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure.
This remains uncertain given assessments within Israel’s defense establishment that at least half of the Lebanese Army’s officers and enlisted personnel are Shiite Muslims. Moreover, Lebanese Armed Forces Commander General Rodolphe Haykal is widely perceived as being sympathetic to Hezbollah.
The United States is now expected to closely oversee the implementation of the framework agreement, with particular emphasis on monitoring the performance of the Lebanese Armed Forces and their commander.
As part of the agreement, the Lebanese military is expected to receive a $30 million U.S. assistance package designed to strengthen its operational capabilities. In addition, the Lebanese government will receive another $100 million in humanitarian aid to assist in recovering from the damage caused by the war, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Nevertheless, senior security officials caution against excessive optimism. In their view, the agreement remains, for the time being, a political document signed between the governments of Israel and Lebanon.
Its true test will be its implementation on the ground by the Lebanese Armed Forces, which, for decades, have consistently avoided confronting Hezbollah or attempting to disarm the organization.
The officials also stress that this is not a final settlement. Thirteen outstanding disputes concerning the land border between Israel and Lebanon remain unresolved.
During the leadership of Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah repeatedly exploited these disputed areas to fuel tensions between the two countries, accuse Israel of occupying Lebanese territory, and justify both its continued existence as an armed organization and its self-proclaimed role as the “defender of Lebanon.”
