The Two-Week Deal and Its Limits

The US and Iran have announced a two-week suspension of bombing and attacks on Iranian territory, with both sides characterizing the arrangement as a ceasefire. But the agreement’s geographic scope has already become the central point of contention.

Al Jazeera has confirmed that Lebanon has been excluded from the ceasefire, and Israeli strikes on Lebanese territory have continued unabated since the deal was announced.

The disagreement over whether Lebanon falls inside or outside any ceasefire’s boundaries is not a minor diplomatic quibble. It determines whether displaced Lebanese civilians can return to their homes, and whether bombardment will stop or persist.

Why Israel Wants Lebanon Excluded

The logic behind Israel’s position is straightforward, even if the consequences are severe. Hezbollah entered the conflict by firing rockets at Israel in solidarity with Tehran, and Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon has been framed as a separate theater of operations tied to its long-standing confrontation with the Iranian-backed group. By excluding Lebanon from any ceasefire framework, Israel preserves operational freedom against Hezbollah without violating the terms of the US-Iran arrangement.

This is a familiar Israeli strategy: compartmentalize conflicts to maintain maximum flexibility. Agreeing to pause hostilities with Iran costs Israel very little, since the US was conducting the bulk of direct strikes against Iranian targets. But agreeing to stop operations in Lebanon would mean accepting constraints on what Israel considers an active security threat along its northern border.

The Guardian reported that Israel has expressed support for US efforts to ensure Iran no longer poses a nuclear, missile, or “terror” threat. The framing positions Israel as a cooperative partner on the Iran front while reserving the right to prosecute its own war next door.

Iran’s 10-Point Plan: Maximalism as Negotiating Position

Iran’s demands go well beyond a simple pause in fighting. According to The Guardian’s reporting on Iran’s 10-point plan, Tehran’s proposals — transmitted through diplomatic channels — address sanctions relief, nuclear program rights, regional security guarantees, and critically, control over strategic shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz. Notably, analysts have flagged ambiguities between the Farsi and English versions of the proposal, which may represent deliberate negotiating room on the most sensitive issues. Any shift in control over those waterways would fundamentally alter the balance of power in one of the world’s most critical chokepoints. The maximalist opening is almost certainly designed to establish a baseline rather than serve as a take-it-or-leave-it offer — the real question is where final terms land after negotiating windows close.

Lebanon’s Civilians Bear the Cost

For residents of southern Lebanon and other affected areas, the ceasefire’s exclusion is more than a diplomatic technicality. The ongoing conflict has caused mass displacement and mounting casualties. Communities that expected a ceasefire to bring relief have instead discovered that their territory was never on the table.

Residents remain deeply skeptical of ceasefire arrangements based on lived experience. Past agreements have been violated repeatedly, and Lebanon’s explicit exclusion only reinforces the sense that its civilian population is treated as collateral in a broader geopolitical negotiation. Turkey and Lebanon have publicly lashed out at Israel’s military operations, and the diplomatic treatment of Lebanese interests within the ceasefire framework has become a flashpoint for regional anger.

The humanitarian crisis runs on its own timeline, disconnected from the diplomatic calendar. Displaced populations cannot simply wait to see whether broader talks produce a resolution that includes their country.

Pakistan’s Role and the Question of Enforcement

Pakistan’s emergence as a potential mediator in this conflict is itself a significant development. Islamabad has been working to convene direct talks between the parties, leveraging its relationships with both Tehran and Washington.

Pakistan’s insistence that any ceasefire must cover Lebanon directly contradicts Israel’s position, setting up a friction point before talks even begin.

China has also played a behind-the-scenes role, with Beijing pushing diplomatic solutions as discussions progressed. The involvement of multiple stakeholders reveals a broader set of actors than a simple bilateral US-Iran negotiation, which complicates both the process and the potential outcomes.

Domestic Pressure and the Clock

Political pressures in the United States have intensified sharply. Public opinion and electoral considerations are driving the urgency behind ceasefire efforts, and may also explain why terms that would have been unthinkable six months ago are now under consideration. The question is whether that same urgency translates into pressure on Israel to include Lebanon in any expanded agreement, or whether the White House is content to let the northern campaign proceed while broader diplomatic tracks continue.

Limited negotiating windows create challenges for comprehensive agreements. Talks, if they happen, would need to address sanctions, nuclear concerns, shipping lanes, frozen assets, and military deployments. Lebanon’s inclusion or exclusion may not even make the agenda. And that, for displaced Lebanese civilians, is precisely the problem. Ceasefires are only as meaningful as the territory they cover, and right now, Lebanon has been deliberately left outside the lines.

Photo by Nothing Ahead on Pexels