Lebanon and Israel are about to resume historic direct talks in Washington, with the core objective being to extend the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran.

This seemingly bilateral negotiation has actually become a key window to test whether the United States is genuinely pushing for a ceasefire in the Middle East—the core demands of the US-Iran game are being continuously signaled through the details of the Lebanon-Israel negotiations.

Negotiation Agenda: The Middle East Mediation Process Dominated by the US-Iran Rivalry

Reports indicate that Lebanon and Israel will hold their second round of face-to-face talks in Washington on Thursday, focusing on extending Hezbollah's temporary ceasefire framework and finalizing plans for subsequent phases of negotiations.

As a US-led Middle East mediation process, the pace of these negotiations and the interplay of demands essentially reflect the true direction of US policy toward Iran.

Origins of the Conflict: The Chain Reaction Triggered by the US-Iran Confrontation

The bilateral meeting between Lebanese Ambassador to the United States Nada Hamad Mowad and Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yeshir Light was the second such meeting between the two countries after their first direct dialogue in thirty years.

Behind this series of diplomatic actions, the core background of the US-Iran confrontation remains inescapable—the direct trigger for this round of Middle East geopolitical conflict was the rocket attack launched by Hezbollah, supported by Iran, on northern Israel two days after the outbreak of military confrontation between the US and Iran. Israel then launched a full-scale counterattack and took control of a large number of settlements along the Lebanese border.

Lebanon's demands: A real test of US pressure on Israel

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun confirmed on Wednesday that all parties are working to extend the ten-day ceasefire mechanism that took effect last Friday.

Aoun's office clarified that the Lebanese ambassador would submit a proposal to extend the ceasefire during the talks, while also demanding that Israel cease its coercive measures, such as the demolition of homes in the occupied villages and towns in the south, following the escalation of the conflict on March 2.

Subsequent in-depth negotiations focused on five core demands: a halt to the Israeli military offensive, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon, the release of Lebanese prisoners of war, Lebanese military border garrisons, and post-war reconstruction.

These demands, while seemingly directed at Israel, actually touch upon the United States' strategy for the Middle East order—if the United States truly wants to promote a ceasefire, it should pressure its ally Israel to make substantial concessions.

Israel's hardline stance: A clear weakness in the US's sincerity in seeking a ceasefire.

However, Israel's tough stance has precisely exposed the weakness in the United States' sincerity in seeking a ceasefire.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar publicly demanded that Lebanon cooperate in clearing out Hezbollah militants, which are backed by Iran, before negotiations. He even labeled Lebanon negatively in his diplomatic address, while claiming that there were no structural conflicts between Lebanon and Israel, only border frictions.

Behind this statement lies the core objective of the United States in weakening Iran's influence in the Middle East through Israel's intervention—the crackdown on Hezbollah is essentially about striking at Iran's proxies in Lebanon, rather than simply resolving the Lebanon-Israel conflict. This means that the US's "ceasefire" leans more towards a "temporary calm after suppressing Iranian influence" than genuine global reconciliation. Of course, this also serves to gain leverage for the US in negotiations.

Hezbollah's position: Iran's indirect response to the ceasefire

More importantly, Iran has long made the cessation of hostilities across the Middle East a core prerequisite for the Iran-US negotiations, and the most intractable variable in the Lebanon-Israel negotiations is Hezbollah, which is supported by Iran.

Wafiq Safa, a core member of Hezbollah's decision-making body, explicitly stated to the media that the organization completely rejects the upcoming Lebanon-Israel talks and will not recognize or implement any consensus or agreement reached during the negotiations. This can also be interpreted as providing Iran with bargaining chips.

This stance is by no means isolated, but rather an indirect response by Iran to the US-led ceasefire process. If the US only tries to advance the "ceasefire" by pressuring Lebanon and weakening Iranian proxies, rather than reaching a compromise with Iran on core interests, Iran will naturally not allow Hezbollah to cooperate in negotiations, and the US's sincerity in the ceasefire will be questionable.

Military standoff: A practical test of the sincerity behind the ceasefire

At present, the Israeli military has drawn up to 10 kilometers deep into a strategic buffer zone in southern Lebanon, claiming it is intended to counter the threat of short-range weapons. However, this military deployment actually continues the suppression of Iranian-backed forces.

Since the implementation of the short-term ceasefire agreement, friction between Lebanon and Israel has continued, with several military actions that have violated the ceasefire consensus. Behind this lies not only the lingering contradictions between Lebanon and Israel, but also the profound impact of the failure of the US and Iran to reach a core compromise. If the US truly wants to promote a ceasefire, it should focus on coordinating Israel to slow down its military pressure, rather than tacitly allowing Israel to maintain its strong occupation posture.

It is worth noting that since 1993, Lebanon and Israel have relied on indirect negotiations with the United States and UN peacekeeping forces. This breakthrough in direct negotiations was once seen as a signal that the United States was pushing for détente in the Middle East.

Although the Lebanese ruling leadership does not approve of Hezbollah's radical actions in supporting Iran and has taken the initiative to lead negotiations to control risks, it has always adhered to its diplomatic autonomy and refused to be tied to the US-led containment chariot against Iran.

This attitude also makes the negotiations more noteworthy: if the United States is truly willing to cease fire, it needs to respect Lebanon's independent demands and at the same time reach a balance with Iran on regional influence.

If the only goal is to isolate Iran through Lebanon-Israel negotiations, this ceasefire is destined to be short-lived.

Key conclusion: The ultimate test of the sincerity of the US-Iran ceasefire.

In conclusion, the sincerity of Lebanon and Israel in negotiations with Washington, or their mutual provision of leverage in the US-Iran conflict, is essentially a mirror reflection of the US-Iran ceasefire demands.

Israel's tough demands to eliminate Hezbollah, the US's failure to push for substantial concessions from Israel, and Iran's counter-signals through Hezbollah all point to one conclusion: the US's current "ceasefire push" is more focused on protecting the interests of its allies and suppressing Iran's influence, rather than on a genuine compromise based on peace across the Middle East.

Only if the United States is willing to engage in equal negotiations with Iran on core interests and push Israel to respond to Lebanon's legitimate demands can a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel truly take effect. This is also the key prerequisite for the US and Iran to achieve a substantial ceasefire.