While Secretary of State Marco Rubio seemed to maintain a low profile while the Iran war’s violence was at its apex, content to focus on projects closer to his heart in the Americas, he has now re-emerged at the helm of Israel-Lebanon diplomacy. That diplomacy has produced an agreement that is roiling Lebanese society, perceived as a functional surrender to the ongoing Israeli occupation. Many commentators were impressed by Vice President JD Vance’s candid rebukes of Israeli excesses, but Rubio’s Lebanon track demonstrates how the pro-Israel wing of the White House is reasserting itself, peace with Iran be damned.
The Lebanon front may receive far less media attention than the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its economic fallout, but it has been no less central to the helter-skelter effort to end Trump and Netanyahu’s war. When the U.S. and Iran first agreed to a cease-fire in April, Pakistani intermediaries reported the terms to include a cease-fire in Lebanon as well. Within a day, Israel launched one of its deadliest single days of airstrikes on Lebanon since the beginning of the war—named “Operation Eternal Darkness,” in classic Israeli tact—killing at least 357 people. Vance insisted that it was a “misunderstanding” that the Iranians believed the cease-fire extended to Lebanon. Two months later, Iran struck northern Israel in retaliation for what they insisted were Israel’s continued and flagrant cease-fire violations in Lebanon, leading to the first direct military exchange between the countries since April and a high-wire diplomatic intervention from the U.S. to prevent the region—and gas prices—from combusting anew.
There are signs that the foreign-policy establishment is ready to back Rubio’s civil war plan in Lebanon.
The terms of the hailed memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran include, unambiguously, an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” and “ensuring [its] territorial integrity and sovereignty” in its very first point. Vance and even President Trump himself made public statements on how Israel’s attacks on Lebanon killed far too many civilians and often seemed perfectly timed to undermine progress in U.S.-Iran talks. The seeming red light from the White House gave its most hawkish, pro-Israel backers evident heartburn; the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which has been the Iran war’s loudest cheerleader and partially staffed Trump’s Iran team, bemoaned how the memorandum protected Hezbollah even as they killed Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil.
Luckily for the hawks, Marco Rubio came to the rescue. On June 26, the secretary announced the official “Trilateral Framework” between Israel, Lebanon, and the U.S., a culmination of diplomacy that had been conducted in fits and starts since April. Far from the memorandum’s hard line on a Lebanon cease-fire and sovereignty, the framework consists of a total surrender of Lebanon’s sovereignty to Israel. Its terms condition the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon on verified disarmament of “non-state armed groups”—a provision aimed squarely at Hezbollah—and the “dismantlement of associated infrastructure,” which has in practice meant the detonation of entire villages by the IDF. In an attempt to clarify any further “misunderstandings” over what diplomacy means for Lebanon, the framework makes copious references to Lebanon’s “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity” solely in the context of how Hezbollah’s continued existence jeopardizes them.
Israel, on the other hand, will be “enable[d]” to “redeploy out of the Lebanese territory” by Hezbollah’s disarmament, and “stresses that its military actions in Lebanon are solely a consequence of the attacks, threat posed by, and hostile intent of non-state armed groups.” In spite of all the talk of phased withdrawals and verification, Israeli officials made clear their own understanding of the deal as enabling an indefinite occupation. Defense Minister Israel Katz spoke of instructing troops to “prepare for an extended stay,” and Netanyahu claimed that the U.S. and Lebanon “have recognised Israel’s right to maintain a security zone inside Lebanon for as long as it remains necessary to safeguard our security.” Adding insult to injury, the terms even require Lebanon to forswear any international legal recourse for Israel’s invasion.
The announcement of the trilateral framework has caused an uproar in Lebanon. Hezbollah, far from the alien Iranian proxy it is often portrayed as, is a significant political force in the country beyond its armed wing, tied closely to the Shia Lebanese community. More than a dozen other Lebanese political parties have criticized or rejected the deal’s terms outright. Israel Hayom reports that Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who only came to power a year ago, received U.S. security guarantees and Saudi economic backing to preserve his fragile tenure in exchange for signing the deal.
Iranian officials, already deeply distrustful of the U.S. for attacking them twice in the course of negotiations, are growing wary of America’s diplomatic sincerity and the durability of the memorandum. One hard-liner accused the U.S. of “parallel-tracking” to reduce Iran’s leverage while keeping them engaged in talks. Rubio’s supposed peace talks are mostly generating instability and distrust.
The ultimate goal outlined in the framework is for the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to disarm Hezbollah themselves. This is, in some ways, a return to the prewar, post-2024 cease-fire status quo, wherein U.S. diplomatic officials like Tom Barrack and Morgan Ortagus pushed the Lebanese government to take on Hezbollah directly while Israel threatened to escalate and do it themselves, killing hundreds of Lebanese in the process. Lebanon understandably balked at this prospect; direct clashes between the LAF and Hezbollah threatened to unleash civil war, and the LAF was already undermanned and undersupplied (Israel has hardly helped by repeatedly killing LAF troops in strikes). Rubio’s framework elevates this goal once again, and he’s been publicly floating the idea of training and equipping LAF units to fight Hezbollah for months—an idea lauded by the FDD and labeled “disastrous” by foreign-policy restrainers.
There are signs that the foreign-policy establishment is ready to back Rubio’s civil war plan in Lebanon. When Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) forced a vote on a war powers resolution to end U.S. participation in Israel’s Lebanon war in early June, Democratic leadership announced its intent to vote against the resolution on the basis that it did not exempt U.S. forces involved with training the LAF. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the highest-ranking Democrat on the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee, blessed a new version of the resolution that explicitly exempted LAF training, which all but 22 Democrats voted for on Tuesday, though it still failed amid near-universal Republican opposition.
This intervention is noteworthy because the War Powers Resolution of 1973 solely pertains to U.S. forces “introduced into hostilities.” If Democratic leadership is concerned that Tlaib’s resolution might have impeded LAF training, it signals an awareness that “training” could veer into active hostilities in the near future. A letter published this week backed by the liberal pro-Israel group J Street and signed by 75 members of Congress, nominally in opposition to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, even “urges” the White House “to work to empower the Lebanese government and to fund the Lebanese Armed Forces to pursue Hezbollah’s full demilitarization and disarmament.”
It’s also unclear whether the U.S. is directly involved in Israel’s Lebanon war already. Meeks asserted on the House floor Monday that “to my knowledge, United States forces are not currently engaged in any active hostilities in Lebanon,” but Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon is not exactly known for its commitment to transparency. A letter led by Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) in May, which asked the Pentagon whether U.S. forces had provided “refueling services, intelligence, or other assistance” to assist the enforcement of Israel’s evacuation orders in Lebanon, received no reply.
Rubio’s Lebanese intervention in U.S.-Iran diplomacy should be viewed with deep suspicion, not just for the danger it poses to the precarious peace but also for what it bodes for Lebanon itself. Tlaib, speaking on the House floor in support of her second Lebanon war powers resolution on Monday, gave the Lebanese government a stark warning: “Learn the lessons of the countries before you and the lessons of Lebanon’s own history … a cease-fire with Israel means you cease, they fire … Do not abandon your land and your people and become another subcontractor for the Israeli occupation.” Time will tell if Lebanon’s government, and American policymakers, heed the warning.
