Djilali Benchabane, geopolitical analyst and director of CEOS Strategy & Consulting, was a guest on franceinfo. He discussed the implementation of a ceasefire in Lebanon, which has been undermined by reported violations, as well as the diplomatic balance between Israel, Lebanon, and the United States. He also analyzed the ongoing negotiations involving Iran, the role of Hezbollah in the region, and the political stakes surrounding US President Donald Trump.
France Télévisions: A ceasefire came into effect last night, at precisely midnight. It was officially announced by the Americans yesterday, but already violated by the Israeli army according to Lebanon. Can we really speak of a ceasefire this morning?
Djilali Benchabane: Unfortunately, in this type of ceasefire, military operations on both sides can often continue. We are almost in a state of constant disruption, with the idea of tension remaining constant. This tension, however, is part of the negotiation process, which is holding up for now. The goal is not to violate it. It is important to remember that the American sponsor is committed to maintaining a form of credibility. Therefore, there will likely be further clashes, but hopefully the overall ceasefire will hold.
Does this mean that this tension does not jeopardize the upcoming meeting in a few days in the United States between Donald Trump, the Lebanese president, and the Israeli Prime Minister?
In my opinion, not at this stage. It should be noted that for President Trump, there is also a question of credibility in his actions, especially in the eyes of his partners. Given the criticisms that have been made, particularly regarding the suggestion that this war between Iran and the US was instigated by Israel, any complete departure from this diplomatic framework could also have political consequences for President Trump.
Anthony Bellanger: What stands out immediately, when observing the recent ten-day ceasefire followed by serious and direct negotiations, is how similar this diplomatic approach is to the one between the US and Iran in the Persian Gulf region known as the Strait of Hormuz. This synchronicity or resemblance is likely not coincidental: it indicates that the two conflicts are interconnected. This is what Iran sought and achieved. Can we then speak of a symbolic victory for Iran?
There may indeed be a symbolic victory for Iran, or at least an integration of its parameters, along with a form of pragmatism on the part of the United States, as the Lebanese equation could not be excluded from a global settlement. When looking at the complexity of the situation, it is important to remember that the stabilization architecture in the Middle East also relies on integrating peripheral dimensions, particularly Lebanon and Hezbollah, and to a lesser extent, pro-Iranian Shiite proxies in Iraq. Therefore, there is a level of seriousness: regardless of challenges or attempts to sideline it, this dimension structurally remains essential.
The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel has always existed independently of the Iran-Israel conflict. Can a lasting peace, a historic peace, as Netanyahu claims, really be envisaged?
I would be more cautious about the idea of a “historic peace.” It is important to note that negotiations are underway, but without the main actor: Hezbollah. Given that Hezbollah plays multiple roles as a military force, a social actor compensating for Lebanese state shortcomings towards the Shiite community, and a major political player, imagining peace without its integration seems to me to be utopian.
But is Hezbollah truly abandoned by Iran, when its decisions also depend on Iran and this was among the conditions set by Tehran for peace negotiations?
In my view, it is not abandoned. All the balances are being built in parallel with negotiations between Tehran and Washington. In any diplomatic negotiation, there is always a symbolic aspect. Lebanon and Israel are engaged in discussions. Subsequently, different steps will lead, in any case, to re-integrating the issue of Hezbollah into the stabilization process.
Anthony Bellanger: Yet, the question of “betraying” Hezbollah is at the heart of all the issues. This was evident when Lebanon agreed to negotiate for the first time in thirty years with Israel, disregarding Hezbollah’s opposition. This was also seen in Iran’s reaction to the expulsion of its ambassador from Beirut, seen as a beginning of a rift between the Lebanese state, Iran, and Hezbollah. Could Hezbollah become a secondary bargaining chip between the US and Iran, helping to address its disarmament?
There are several levels of analysis on this matter. Negotiations could indeed proceed, in whole or in part, to the detriment of Hezbollah. But can we imagine that Iran would completely detach itself from Hezbollah, especially since it is a crucial leverage point for its influence in the Middle East, especially after the loss of Syria? I think not. However, the question of disarmament remains a central issue. Again, I remain cautious, as the Lebanese state remains structurally fragile. This fragility does not allow it, in the short and medium term, to challenge the influence and power of Hezbollah.
