Lebanon in the Eye of the 'Economic Normandy' Against Iran
As the region remained tense over the “Economic Normandy” announced by President Donald Trump, invoking the historic “D-Day” (June 6, 1944) in the context of confronting Iran, Lebanon’s adherence to what it considers its “life raft” against any new regional storms is intensifying. This stance is shaped by its direct negotiation track with Tel Aviv, sponsored by Washington, which faces headwinds from multiple directions—both Israeli and Iranian—placing it on the brink of an American-prohibited collapse.
While Trump appeared to have made a “move” on the Iran front, viewing it as a “checkmate” that would eventually force either the political structure of the regime to collapse or compel Tehran to accept Washington’s conditions regarding the nuclear file and the Strait of Hormuz, Beirut is tightening its belt. It is closely monitoring how Tehran will adapt to this new reality, which has seen the US president impose the rules of a new game. In its strict application, this approach treats all parties equally, effectively depriving the Islamic Republic of any “reserve oxygen” that could help it break the imposed siege.
Lebanon’s position is linked to developments on the Iran front through the “control and leverage” it holds over the decision to wage war there via Hezbollah. There is fear that the southern front could become part of a new “forward leap” strategy by Tehran, shifting from an economic strangulation policy to wrapping a “noose” around the entire region’s neck. Meanwhile, the negotiation track between Beirut and Tel Aviv, which “the Land of Cedars” views as its platform for seizing the “peace decision,” has transformed, according to informed circles, into a protective shield that guarantees at least two outcomes:
- Maintaining a “useful geography” that serves as a foundation for post-war arrangements, while simultaneously offering Washington “incentives” that facilitate US pressure on Israel to restrain it from any surge that would burn the “day-after” roadmap for Lebanon, which is being diplomatically charted toward a comprehensive peaceful settlement.
Hence, it is understandable, according to informed sources, why the Lebanese authorities cling to the negotiation track despite its difficulties and the collusion of Israel and Hezbollah, each for their own reasons in complicating the process. Tel Aviv seeks to delay it due to the conflict between its core principles (gradual withdrawal from the south) and the critical electoral moment for Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as to emphasize the linkage with the complete withdrawal of Hezbollah’s weapons from all of Lebanon. Hezbollah, for its part, insists on Iran’s “monopoly” over the Lebanese card, whether in any confrontation of the “after the flood” style or in any new negotiations with Washington that would extend the (suspended) memorandum of understanding, albeit “enhanced.”
As Washington continues its efforts to create conditions for the eighth round of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations in Rome, following the approval of their convening in September, with a focus on how to navigate the corners of the experimental zones issue—which cannot be expanded before a verification mechanism is approved for the Israeli withdrawal, the deployment of the Lebanese army, and the withdrawal of Hezbollah’s weapons from every liberated area—this file featured prominently during Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s visit to Italy. There, he met with Pope Leo XIV on Thursday and is scheduled to meet with Italian President Sergio Mattarella and Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Friday.
This station has gained significance as indicators increasingly suggest that Rome may assume a dual role: as host to the executive negotiations of the Framework Agreement signed between Lebanon, Israel, the United States, and as the leader of the multinational verification commission currently being established. This comes alongside the balancing role of the Vatican and its diplomacy in supporting Beirut’s position that Tel Aviv must adhere to the parameters of the Framework Agreement, particularly regarding the ceasefire, and halting burning, scraping, and destruction operations in the south.
During a private meeting, President Aoun thanked the Pope “for all the efforts he is making to support Lebanon in achieving its demands to end the occupation and Israeli aggression on its land,” and urged him to continue supporting these demands, foremost among which is compelling Israel to implement the provisions of the Framework Agreement, immediately cease its aggression against villages, infrastructure, and civilians in the south, and fully withdraw from occupied areas to pave the way for reconstructing what Israel has destroyed, and for the return of displaced persons to their land and villages.
The President of the Republic emphasized that these steps must coincide with the extension of the Lebanese state’s authority over its entire territory and the monopoly of the decision on war and peace by the state, as the only means to achieve security and stability along the borders.
A statement issued by the Vatican Press Office noted that “the friendly talks focused primarily on the ‘Trilateral Framework Agreement’ aimed at stabilizing the southern border of the Lebanese Republic and achieving a just and lasting peace. While expressing the Holy See’s satisfaction with the signing of this document, it simultaneously expressed serious concern regarding the difficulties facing its implementation, reaffirming its support for the efforts being made in this direction.”
Meanwhile, the Hezbollah parliamentary bloc escalated its stance toward the “pillars of power” in Lebanon, asserting that “their approach and behavior encourage the enemy to continue its occupation of Lebanon and perpetrate brutality and genocide to extinguish life in its southern villages, with the approval and support of the criminal US administration.” The bloc renewed its call on the authorities to “declare the death of the ‘Framework Agreement,’ withdraw from the negotiations, and abandon the shameful rounds of talks.”
Deputy Ali Ammar addressed “Your Excellencies and the State,” urging them “to describe the current stage accurately, not to evade their responsibilities, and not to seek refuge with those they believe offer protection for this country, especially since neither the Americans nor the Zionists wish any good for this country (...)”
He added: “No one, regardless of their position, rank, or status domestically, has standing, dignity, or honor except through this resistance and its weapons,” warning “some within Lebanon against US policies that have never been concerned with the dignity and sovereignty of peoples (...)”
The statement from Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc and Ammar’s remarks, particularly his reference to “Your Excellencies and the State” (plural, a title in Lebanon reserved exclusively for the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker of Parliament), were interpreted as an implicit nod to Speaker Nabih Berri’s comments on Wednesday before a delegation from the “US Working Group on Lebanon.” This appeared to contradict all of Hezbollah’s previous positions, as Berri effectively “sought help” from the United States and “entrusted” Trump, describing him as “the only one capable of compelling Israel to end its war, halt the fighting, and withdraw to the international border in the south.” This covered the “experimental zones” mechanism, which Berri was reported to have said he personally wanted to see succeed, and that he was ready to speak with Hezbollah to accept the deployment of the Lebanese Army on Ali al-Tahir hill (north of the Litani River) if Tel Aviv openly expressed willingness and consent.
