On eve of direct Jerusalem-Beirut talks, Israel vows to maintain presence in Lebanon

Times of Israel ^ | 6/23/2026 | Emanuel Fabian, Jacob Magid

[fruser1]

Hours before the latest round of direct talks between Jerusalem and Beirut were slated to kick off in Washington, Israeli leaders vowed to maintain a presence in southern Lebanon, while the slated negotiations were sidelined to a degree by developments in US-Iran talks.

Lebanese authorities, meanwhile, sought to separate their negotiations with Israel from the wider regional talks led by the United States, as Beirut continues to try to minimize the influence of the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Trump administration is trying to maintain the legitimacy of the direct channel it created between Israel and Lebanon after having seemingly undermined the initiative by using US talks with Iran in order to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon.

The apparent disconnect may have to do with the fact that the talks with Iran are led by US Vice President JD Vance, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has spearheaded the talks between Israel and Lebanon while largely staying out of the Iran talks.

US President Donald Trump has oscillated between the two tracks, sometimes giving attention to the Israel-Lebanon channel as he tries to detach Lebanon from the Iran conflict, and other times legitimizing Iranian demands that its deal with Washington include Lebanon.

As of late, the administration appears to be prioritizing the latter track as it works to sustain the memorandum of understanding it reached with Iran last week, but Trump is known to shift drastically on these matters.

---

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iran

[fruser1]

This may explain the obvious absurdity of how Hezbollah is handled in the MOU, and apparent vacillation by Trump in his tweets. He's simply put Vance and Rubio out with general guidance and orders to work out the details. Trump comments on any parts of that that catch his attention.

Per "Hezbollah absurdity", I mean:

-If Hez is simply an Iran "ally" and all fronts are to be vacated, including having Israel out of Lebanon, then Hezbollah needs to get out of Lebanon.

-If, however, Hez is the de facto government of Lebanon, there is no reason to host Israel/Lebanon talks.

As long as Hezbollah remains "protected" by the forthcoming "deal", as it appears to be in the MOU, this negotiation is going nowhere.

So to "solve" the nuclear program problem in this deal, they are going to have to "solve" Hezbollah as well. Doesn't sound encouraging.

I think the Iranians need some more softening up.

[Retain Mike]

I wonder if Lebanon has a legitimate government? As a heavily armed faction to what extent does Hezbollah have a veto power?

[Pres Raygun]

I wonder if Lebanon has a legitimate government? As a heavily armed faction to what extent does Hezbollah have a veto power?

It is hard to tell. If the Christian Lebanese were allied with the IDF, with some covert backing from the us, then they may have a chance at removing Hezbollah from Lebanon, especially if Iran is hurt economically by the sanctions. The MOU and a subsequent deal would most likely undermine this.

I'm wondering though, if Trump is using the Iranian's tactic of interminable delay against them with the MOU. Trump needs the hostilities to cease and the strait kept open through the mid-term election and then he can finish the job. He can give Iran a sweet heart deal and then rip it up the day after the midterm election. There's nothing immoral about deceiving deceivers.