Israel has announced control over the Ali Al-Taher ridge in southern Lebanon, marking the capture of what has been described as Hezbollah’s last stronghold in the region. According to the Lebanon-Israel framework agreement, Israel is expected to withdraw from areas it occupies in southern Lebanon once these zones are cleared of Hezbollah militants and other nonstate actors, transferring authority to the Lebanese army. However, there is considerable skepticism about whether Israel will comply with this provision.
Recent developments, including the destruction of roads, construction of barriers, and the establishment of a sustained military presence on the ground, suggest that Israel may be seeking to solidify a buffer zone rather than pull back as stipulated. Critics argue that these actions signal an intent to create a permanent zone of influence in southern Lebanon. This follow-through is significant given Israel’s historical reluctance to fully implement territorial withdrawals as outlined in prior agreements.
The Lebanese government, led by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, has placed trust in the framework as a pathway to restoring Lebanese sovereignty over the south and reasserting control through its military. President Aoun, who initiated the negotiation process with Israel during the early stages of the Iran war, now faces criticism amid changing regional dynamics and the growing perception that the United States may lack leverage over Israeli actions. Lebanon’s leadership had anticipated that the Trump administration would exert pressure on Israel to comply with the accord, a prospect many now see as unlikely.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clearly expressed unwillingness to withdraw from multiple contested territories, including Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank. Observers contend that Israel’s foothold in southern Lebanon is part of a broader strategy aimed at retaining influence across neighboring areas. Following the capture of Ali Al-Taher ridge, Israel intensified bombardments near Nabatiyeh, prompting President Aoun to hold Israel accountable and call on the international community for intervention to halt the attacks and enforce withdrawal.
Despite these appeals, there is little expectation that Washington will compel Israel to retreat. Analysts warn that Israel’s continued presence after clearing Hezbollah fighters could fuel domestic tensions within Lebanon. Such an outcome could politically strengthen Hezbollah, reinforce its narrative of resistance, and further undermine the Lebanese state’s authority and capacity to disarm the group.
Conversely, a successful Israeli withdrawal coordinated with the Lebanese government could unite various factions within Lebanon against Hezbollah’s military power. Current diplomatic efforts hinge on this possibility, though prevailing indicators suggest an Israeli pullback is unlikely. Israeli officials appear focused on maintaining leverage rather than pursuing disarmament initiatives in cooperation with Lebanon.
Lebanese officials view the decision to engage in direct negotiations with Israel as a significant risk taken under difficult circumstances. Should Israel ultimately refuse to honor withdrawal commitments, it may not only destabilize Lebanon’s current government but also discourage future administrations from pursuing diplomatic resolutions with Israel.