TEL AVIV/DUBAI, June 24 – A fragile diplomatic effort aimed at reducing tensions between the US and Iran is facing growing challenges as Israel insists it will keep troops deployed in southern Lebanon, while senior U.S. officials work to convince regional allies that the newly announced peace framework can deliver long-term stability.
The agreement, unveiled last week following months of conflict and intense negotiations, is intended to ease a crisis that has shaken the Middle East and disrupted global energy markets. While supporters view the arrangement as a significant step toward de-escalation, critics across the region argue that key questions remain unanswered, particularly regarding Iran’s future conduct, Israel’s military operations in Lebanon, and the long-term security of critical shipping routes.
Israeli leaders have made it clear that they are not prepared to alter their security strategy in southern Lebanon despite ongoing diplomatic discussions. At the same time, Iranian officials continue to argue that any meaningful peace effort must address the conflict in Lebanon alongside broader regional concerns.
Israel Stands Firm on Lebanon Security Zone as Tehran Links Regional Stability to Peace Efforts
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz reaffirmed his country’s position during a public appearance in Tel Aviv, stating that Israeli forces would remain in southern Lebanon. According to Katz, the military presence is necessary to safeguard communities in northern Israel and maintain security following months of cross-border violence.
Katz emphasized that Israel has established what it considers a defensive security zone and indicated that there is currently no pressure from Washington demanding a withdrawal. His comments underscore the widening gap between military realities on the ground and diplomatic efforts taking place behind closed doors.
The issue remains particularly sensitive because discussions are ongoing regarding a U.S.-backed proposal that would see Israeli forces withdraw from portions of southern Lebanon and transfer control to the Lebanese Armed Forces. Supporters of the proposal believe such a move could reduce tensions and create conditions for a broader regional settlement.
However, Israeli officials remain cautious, arguing that previous security arrangements failed to prevent attacks originating from Lebanese territory.
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has intensified in recent months after the Iran-backed group launched attacks in support of Tehran during the wider regional confrontation. Since then, military exchanges have become a central feature of the crisis, complicating efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace agreement.
Iran has repeatedly stressed that developments in Lebanon cannot be separated from negotiations involving Tehran and Washington. Speaking in Baku during a gathering of lawmakers from member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf declared that a ceasefire in Lebanon holds equal importance to any ceasefire involving Iran itself.
His remarks reflected Tehran’s broader position that regional stability must extend beyond bilateral agreements and address ongoing conflicts throughout the Middle East.
Meanwhile, violence has continued despite diplomatic activity. Lebanese security and medical officials reported that an Israeli drone strike targeted a vehicle in southern Lebanon, resulting in at least two fatalities. The Israeli military later stated that its air force had carried out operations against armed Hezbollah members near an area controlled by Israeli forces. It remained unclear whether both statements referred to the same incident.
The continued clashes highlight the difficulties negotiators face as they attempt to transform political agreements into lasting security arrangements on the ground.
Rubio Seeks Regional Support While Questions Persist Over Iran Deal and Hormuz Security
As debate over the peace framework intensifies, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has embarked on a regional tour designed to reassure allies who remain unconvinced about the agreement’s benefits.
Rubio met with United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and other senior Emirati officials during a working session focused on regional security, economic recovery, and future cooperation. The American diplomat is also scheduled to visit Kuwait and Bahrain, two countries that host important U.S. military installations and experienced direct consequences from Iranian missile attacks during the conflict.
Many governments in the Gulf remain wary of the proposed arrangement. Critics argue that elements of the agreement appear too favorable to Tehran and may not adequately address concerns about future Iranian influence across the region.
Particular attention has focused on reports suggesting that Iran could receive substantial economic benefits through sanctions relief and access to previously restricted financial resources. While supporters believe economic incentives are necessary to encourage compliance, opponents fear such measures could strengthen Tehran without guaranteeing lasting behavioral changes.
Policymakers across the region have also raised questions regarding the exact terms governing Iran’s nuclear activities. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was one of the central objectives behind the military campaign that began earlier this year.
Iranian leaders continue to reject accusations that they are pursuing nuclear weapons. On Wednesday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi reiterated Tehran’s position, stating through social media that no meeting had taken place with International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi despite requests for discussions.
Gharibabadi further stated that Iran currently has no plans to provide access to nuclear sites damaged during the conflict or to allow inspections of certain nuclear materials. According to his comments, such issues would only be considered as part of a final agreement and after concrete sanctions relief measures are implemented.
Another major point of discussion involves the future management of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors. The waterway serves as a critical route for global energy supplies, and its disruption during the conflict contributed to volatility in international oil markets.
Shipping traffic has gradually resumed, helping ease market concerns and contributing to lower oil prices. Nevertheless, negotiations regarding future oversight and operational arrangements for the strait remain underway.
Diplomatic sources familiar with regional discussions indicated that Qatar and Oman are engaged in consultations aimed at launching broader talks involving Gulf nations and Iran. One area of debate centers on whether any form of transit, environmental, navigation, or security-related fees could be introduced for vessels passing through the waterway.
Several Gulf states are reportedly expected to oppose new charges, emphasizing the importance of maintaining uninterrupted and cost-effective maritime trade.
President Trump sought to calm concerns by stating that Iranian officials had assured Washington there would be no tolls or additional costs imposed on ships using the strait. The statement was intended to counter speculation that commercial shipping could face new financial burdens in the aftermath of the conflict.
Despite such assurances, uncertainty continues to surround multiple aspects of the emerging agreement. With Israel maintaining its military presence in Lebanon, Iran demanding broader regional guarantees, and Gulf allies seeking greater clarity on security arrangements, the path toward a durable peace remains complex.
Diplomatic engagement is continuing on several fronts, but officials across the Middle East acknowledge that significant obstacles must still be overcome before the region can move beyond one of its most turbulent periods in recent years.