Who Wants to Derail the Lebanon–Israel Peace Agreement—and What's Really at Stake?

By Tony Boulos

AI-generated illustration of the Lebanon–Israel Peace Agreement.

The proposed Lebanon–Israel Peace Agreement has triggered one of Lebanon's fiercest political battles in years. Even before implementation has begun, political parties, ideological movements, and regional actors have mobilized to block it. Their objections extend far beyond the details of the framework itself. At stake is not simply peace with Israel, but Lebanon's sovereignty, the authority of the Lebanese state, and the country's future direction.

Brokered through U.S. mediation, the agreement envisions a phased process in which Israeli forces withdraw from designated areas they currently occupy in southern Lebanon while the Lebanese Armed Forces gradually assume full security responsibility. Israel went into Southern Lebanon after Hezbollah launched rocket and drone strikes on Israel on March 2, 2026, in support of Iran in its war with Israel and the United States. It also establishes a framework for resolving outstanding border disputes and replacing decades of recurring conflict with a more stable political and security arrangement.

Supporters see the initiative as far more than another diplomatic effort. They argue it presents Lebanon with a historic opportunity to restore the state's exclusive authority over national security and foreign policy after decades in which war, peace, and strategic decisions were often shaped by forces operating beyond government control. Opponents, by contrast, warn that the agreement risks compromising Lebanon's sovereignty and weakening its ability to confront future threats.

The dispute therefore reflects two competing visions of Lebanon: one centered on a sovereign state exercising exclusive authority over its territory and institutions, and another that continues to define Lebanon's security through the broader regional confrontation with Israel.

Who Is Opposing the Lebanon–Israel Peace Agreement?

Opposition to the agreement extends well beyond criticism of its individual provisions. It includes Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and other political factions that view normalization with Israel as fundamentally incompatible with Lebanon's strategic interests. Hezbollah, of course, is backed by Iran. While their motivations differ, supporters argue that many opponents share one overriding concern: a successful agreement would shift decisions over war and peace from armed movements and from Tehran back to the Lebanese state, fundamentally altering Lebanon's internal balance of power.

Opponents reject that argument. They maintain that preserving military leverage against Israel remains essential to Lebanon's national defense and warn that any peace arrangement must fully protect the country's sovereignty, territorial claims, and long-term security. The debate has therefore become less about diplomacy itself than about who ultimately determines Lebanon's strategic future and where those decisions are made - in Beirut or elswhere.

Why February 6, 1984 Still Matters

Many Lebanese see echoes of another pivotal moment in their country's history: the collapse of the May 17 Agreement with Israel following the events of February 6, 1984.

Whatever one's view of that agreement, its failure marked the beginning of more than two decades of dominant Syrian influence over Lebanese political life. Governments, security appointments, and many of the country's most consequential decisions were widely seen as being shaped in Damascus rather than Beirut. Although Syria withdrew following the Cedar Revolution in 2005, the events of May 2008 once again underscored how contested the state's authority over questions of war and peace remained.

Supporters of today's Lebanon–Israel Peace Agreement argue that Lebanon has arrived at another historic crossroads. This time, however, the regional environment is markedly different. Hezbollah has come under growing military and political pressure, Iran's regional influence has weakened, Lebanon's economic collapse has increased demand for stability, and the Abraham Accords have transformed the regional conversation about coexistence with Israel. Together with renewed American and Arab support for stronger Lebanese state institutions, these developments have created an opportunity that many believe did not exist four decades ago.

Hezbollah and Iran Have the Most to Lose

Among the agreement's opponents, none have more at stake than Hezbollah and its principal backer, Iran.

For more than three decades, Hezbollah has justified maintaining an independent military force by arguing that Lebanon remains in a state of conflict with Israel. That rationale has allowed the organization to retain an armed structure outside the authority of the Lebanese state, even as other militias were dismantled after the civil war.

Supporters of the agreement argue that a durable peace would fundamentally weaken that justification. If the Lebanese Armed Forces become solely responsible for securing the country's borders and managing relations with Israel, pressure would inevitably grow for all armed groups to come under the exclusive authority of the state.

The implications extend beyond Lebanon. Hezbollah has long served as the cornerstone of Iran's regional strategy, giving Tehran significant influence over Lebanese security policy and the broader confrontation with Israel. A stronger Lebanese state exercising exclusive control over decisions of war and peace would inevitably reduce that influence.

Hezbollah and its allies reject this analysis. They argue that their military capabilities remain essential to deterring Israeli aggression and that disarmament without comprehensive security guarantees would leave Lebanon vulnerable. The disagreement therefore reflects not only competing security strategies but fundamentally different visions of the Lebanese state.

What the Agreement Could Change

For many ordinary Lebanese, this debate is about far more than diplomacy. After years of economic collapse, currency devaluation, political paralysis, and repeated conflict, many are simply asking whether the next generation can inherit a country focused on rebuilding rather than surviving.

Supporters argue that the agreement offers an opportunity to begin reversing decades of decline. By reinforcing the authority of the Lebanese Armed Forces and restoring the state's monopoly over national security, they believe Lebanon could revive tourism, attract Gulf and international investment, accelerate reconstruction, and create the stability needed for long-overdue economic reforms. Peace alone will not solve Lebanon's crises, they acknowledge, but without greater stability, meaningful recovery is unlikely.

Critics remain unconvinced. They argue that normalization cannot resolve Lebanon's structural political and economic problems and warn that any agreement must safeguard the country's sovereignty, territorial claims, and long-term security interests. Whether the proposed framework can satisfy those concerns will ultimately determine its political viability.

Lebanon's Choice

The debate over the Lebanon–Israel Peace Agreement has become about far more than relations between Beirut and Jerusalem. It is ultimately a debate about the future of the Lebanese Republic itself.

At its core lies a simple but profound question: Should decisions of war and peace belong exclusively to Lebanon's constitutional institutions, or should armed movements and regional powers continue to exercise decisive influence over the country's strategic direction?

History offers a clear lesson. Every serious attempt to strengthen the authority of the Lebanese state has encountered resistance from forces that benefited from the existing balance of power. Whether this agreement succeeds or fails will therefore shape far more than Israel–Lebanon relations. It may determine whether Lebanon finally emerges as a sovereign state governed by one constitution, one government, and one national army—or whether it remains an arena where competing regional powers continue to define its future.

Peace agreements do more than end wars. They determine who has the authority to start them. That—not simply the wording of any diplomatic document—is what the battle over the Lebanon–Israel Peace Agreement is ultimately about.

Tony Boulos is a Lebanese journalist and political analyst specializing in Middle East security and geopolitics. A frequent commentator on Arab and international TV, he provides expert insights into the region’s complex landscape. Boulos is a regular ME24 contributor, delivering strategic analysis on the most pressing issues in the Middle East.