Alastair Crooke
Conflicts Forum (Substack) / April 17, 2026
A compilation tracking consequential & strategic observations – Analysis & reports from the Lebanese press and leading regional commentators (April 17, 2026)
Al-Akhbar: What happened in Islamabad regarding Lebanon? /
Report: Iran halted major missile attack on Israel over Lebanon ceasefire violation to allow for Pakistani mediation /
Ibrahim Al-Amine: Lebanon needs a National Unity Government and National Security Project not subject to US-Israeli dictates /
Michael Young: Iranian Hegemony vs Israeli Hegemony – Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks /
Israel acknowledges ‘Iranian hand’ in ceasefire – ‘Ceasefire part of Trump’s broader regional effort to stabilise the entire arena’ /
NOW Lebanon: New Era: Lebanon distances itself from Iran; Hezbollah’s weakened
CONSEQUENTIAL OBSERVATIONS & STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENTS:
What Happened in Islamabad Regarding Lebanon? (Al-Akhbar):
Al-Akhbar has learned details of the US-Iranian talks on Lebanon in Islamabad. A high-ranking Iranian diplomatic source who participated in the negotiations revealed what transpired at the negotiating table regarding a ceasefire in Lebanon. [The source] explained that the Pakistani announcement came as a surprise to Israel …. Netanyahu quickly contacted Trump, convincing him of his “urgent need for more time to achieve gains on the ground, so as not to appear defeated,” speaking of “the importance of a victory image for him for domestic reasons,” and thus obtaining a week’s grace period to achieve this … Netanyahu escalated his aggression against Beirut and Lebanon in a blatant violation of the ceasefire agreement. According to the source, this incident influenced Iran’s decision to re-close the Strait of Hormuz … Tehran informed the Pakistani mediator of these developments, and confirmed that they had previously declared Lebanon be included in the agreement with the approval of the [US] …
The concerned parties were given a 24-hour deadline to address the situation: the Pakistani side worked diligently to ensure that negotiations would not be cancelled under any circumstances, even if the fighting in Lebanon continued, a position Tehran categorically rejected … Upon arriving [in Islamabad, the Iranian delegation] waited for approximately five hours, with the Pakistani mediator being informed that they would depart if no solution was reached. Shortly before evening, a call arrived in Tehran confirming that a formula had been reached to address the ceasefire in Lebanon … When the Iranian side requested further details … they were asked to trust the Pakistani mediation. Based on the mediators’ assurances, Tehran announced its acceptance of the delegation’s travel. Upon arrival, a meeting was held with the Pakistani Army Chief, [during which] the Iranian delegation inquired about the reasons for the enemy’s violation of the truce in Lebanon and the US cover-up of this … The Pakistani side responded: … First, the claim that resolving the crisis in Lebanon required direct communication between Iran and Israel, a proposal rejected by Tehran … The US attempted to appease [Iran] by guaranteeing a halt to the bombing of Beirut … Secondly, the claim that the Lebanese state had requested that the ceasefire not be implemented in parallel with direct negotiations between it and Israel, whilst [also] objecting to other parties representing [Lebanon]. The source [said] the tone escalated, confirming the seriousness of Iran’s position in refusing to engage in negotiations under the proposed conditions. The American side requested a two-hour respite to find a solution …
At the negotiating table, regarding Lebanon, the Iranian diplomatic source stated that Tehran presented conditions including “unrestricted disengagement, lifting restrictions imposed on the resistance and guaranteeing its freedom of action, in addition to cancelling existing agreements and mechanisms, including the ‘Mechanism’ committee.” When the Americans expressed surprise at these demands, the Iranian negotiator responded that the situation on the ground allowed for their imposition. The source notes that there was no direct American rejection of these conditions, but rather a suggestion to consult with Netanyahu, given the inability to make the decision on his behalf. The Iranian side emphasized its rejection of any formula that included restrictions on the resistance. Subsequently, negotiations related to the nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz stalled, and the delegation left without an agreement … due to the non-compliance with the condition concerning Lebanon …
Two days ago, progress was made in the exchange of messages between Tehran and Washington, prompting the Pakistani mediator to visit Iran. The Lebanese issue resurfaced. The source says that Tehran reiterated that any future round of negotiations is directly contingent upon including Lebanon in the framework of the Pakistan negotiations. With the expiration of the week-long deadline Trump had given Netanyahu to achieve some tangible success on the ground, and with the Israeli army failing in southern Lebanon, Trump informed mediators that a ceasefire would take effect within hours. The American side contacted President Aoun and [Netanyahu] to arrange the “solution”, while the Iranians informed their allies in Lebanon, prior to the Trump-Aoun call, that the agreement had been finalized … Ghalibaf contacted Nabih Berri yesterday and informed him that Tehran insisted on a ceasefire in Lebanon as a precondition for resuming negotiations with the US.
______
Report: Iran halted major missile attack on Israel over Lebanon ceasefire violation to allow for Pakistani mediation (Hossein Pak, Iranian commentator, 16 April)
I was informed by private sources that after the Netanyahu government refused a ceasefire in Lebanon, Iran was on the verge of launching an unprecedented missile barrage towards “Israel.” The missile barrage was scheduled to be more powerful than anything the enemy has witnessed during the war to date. Its execution was cancelled twice out of respect for the Pakistani mediator. Iran set a 24-hour deadline yesterday evening for “Israel” to stop its aggression against Lebanon, and if the enemy does not commit to a ceasefire, Iran’s front will reopen. The Iranian threat bore fruit … The permanent coordination between Iran and the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, and the imposition of a ceasefire on the American-Zionist enemy, has an irreversible corollary: Any breach of the ceasefire by the enemy will be met with a resolute and forceful response. There is no going back ([UN Resolution] 1701 — 2024 [originally agreed in 2006]), for that option has fallen. We have established a new equation … The [Lebanon] ceasefire constituted a fundamental condition for Iran since day one, and it was reached after sustained Iranian pressure.
______
America lost, Israel submitted, and the Resistance brought us back to the era of victories; Lebanon needs a national unity government and a realistic national security project not subject to US-Israeli dictates (Ibrahim Al-Amine, Al-Akhbar, 17 April):
What happened yesterday revealed that the US has retreated, and that Israel has reappeared as a tool compliant with American dictates … At midnight, the enemy was forced to halt its criminal war on Lebanon. However, this cessation requires clear parameters to transform into a genuine end to the war [and] complete withdrawal from the occupied territories …
[Meanwhile] the occupying authority ruling in Beirut will face its most difficult challenge since the Americans installed it 16 months ago … Will it side with its people to remove the effects of the aggression and guarantee their safety, or will it revert to its old ways of offering concession after concession to appease those who brought it to power? … In a few days, whether within the ten-day ceasefire period or afterward, the enemy’s true test will begin. If it believes it can return to the status quo ante of 2 March, then it is granting the Resistance the direct and legitimate right to respond … However, if the enemy [Israel] commits to a complete cessation of all hostilities, then it must announce a very short timetable for withdrawal from all occupied Lebanese territory. A repeat of the prolonged occupation scenario, as seen after the last war, will not be acceptable …As for the ruling occupying power, it will face its final test, which requires it to uphold the rights of the martyrs, the people, the resistance fighters, and the sons of the land. Otherwise, sweeping it away will be the first task of the people who have endured so much … What the country has witnessed over the past two years reaffirms Lebanon’s urgent need for a decisive move to form a truly political national unity government. This government should include all forces that reflect the will of the people and serve as the sole forum for discussing all the critical issues facing the Lebanese people, from recovering stolen funds to restoring the credibility of state institutions and administrations, strengthening the national immunity of all institutions, ending American-Saudi tutelage, and ultimately discussing ways to protect Lebanon through a realistic national security project that is not subject to the dictates of the American and Israeli enemies.
______
Iranian Hegemony vs Israeli Hegemony — Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks (Michael Young, Carnegie-DIWAN, 15 April):
Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony … The practical consequence of the [US-based Lebanon-Israel] talks is to place Lebanon at the center of a harsh Iranian-Israeli struggle for influence in the Middle East. It’s hard to see how Lebanon can come out of this intact … [Iran and Hizbullah’s] reactions underscored that Iran won’t surrender its Lebanon card easily. This will likely manifest itself through heightened tensions inside Lebanon, greater mobilization in the street against negotiations with Israel … if not threats of civil war. Opposition may also conceivably take on a regional dimension as countries that also oppose Israeli hegemony collaborate with Iran to derail any prospect of Lebanon falling into an Israeli sphere of influence …
A major obstacle for the Lebanese government will be to disarm Hezbollah … [However] the reality is that Lebanon’s armed forces do not have the capacity to forcibly take Hezbollah’s weapons … If they were to do so, they would find themselves fighting not only a potent paramilitary force, but also its entire community, because it is more than likely that Shiites would rally to the party’s side. This would create an impossible situation for the Lebanese state … In early April [2026], Lebanon’s Ministry of Social Affairs reported that 1.05 million people had been displaced by Israel in Lebanon, and the vast majority of them are Shiites … Shiites look to their east and see a Salafi regime in Syria that they believe would like to exact revenge for Hezbollah’s support of al-Assad’s regime. And to their south, they see the Israeli steamroller. In such a fraught environment, can anyone realistically expect that a community facing a perceived existential threat will surrender its weapons willingly?
So, if the Lebanese armed forces cannot seize Hezbollah’s arsenal militarily and the Shiite community refuses to relinquish its weapons, one has to look for alternative methods of imposing the state’s monopoly over violence. Common sense leads to the conclusion that only by including Iran in some broad package deal that involves Hezbollah’s disarmament, with guarantees that Shiites will be protected, can there be any chance of making progress … Since Israel is likely to use a peace agreement with Lebanon to impose its supremacy over the country, such an arrangement is almost inconceivable … What kind of peace Israel would like to negotiate[?] Previous Israeli behaviour provides clues. In Syria, Gaza, and now Lebanon, the Israelis have shown that they intend to impose buffer zones inside their neighbours’ territory … The proposal to create an economic zone in the border area could well set up a governing authority that has a say on who can enter such an area … [thus] Israel could be granted veto power over which Lebanese citizens can access sovereign Lebanese territory. The Israelis may also demand the freedom to deploy forces inside Lebanon … and might even demand oversight over Lebanon’s borders with Syria. Such demands would be untenable for [Lebanon] … What we’re likely to see in the coming months is serious strains inside Lebanon, which will make compromise nearly impossible …
______
Israel acknowledges ‘Iranian hand’ in ceasefire — ‘Part of Trump’s broader regional effort to stabilise the entire arena’ (Yahya Dabouq, Al-Akhbar):
Following Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire [in Lebanon], Israeli media outlets unanimously described the situation as a mixture of surprise, frustration, and disappointment. Commentaries in prominent Israeli media outlets — Maariv, Yediot Ahronot, Haaretz and Walla! — converged on the point that the ceasefire is solely linked to Iran and the negotiating track between Washington and Tehran, and not to the outcome of any negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. They noted that extending or ending the ceasefire remains tied to this same process and to Trump’s willingness to ensure the success of the negotiations with Tehran.
Maariv stated that “the de-escalation in Lebanon is part of a broader regional effort to stabilize the entire arena, against the backdrop of Washington’s attempt to prevent further escalation in the confrontation with Iran.” It clarified that the ceasefire with Lebanon “is not a local objective in itself, but rather a link in a much broader regional initiative aimed at creating a series of political developments instead of expanding the war.” Maariv noted that Trump announced a ten-day ceasefire even before the Israeli cabinet had completed its deliberations, reflecting the fact that the decision was “an American order imposed on all parties” … Haaretz considered the ceasefire “a result of American pressure related to broader regional calculations, and not a response to a Lebanese-Israeli negotiating track” … Yedioth Ahronoth emphasised that “the American president does not want the war in Lebanon to become an obstacle to reaching an agreement with Iran,” and that the ceasefire was imposed on Israel precisely for this reason. It explained that “the future of the ceasefire remains contingent on the outcome of the ongoing negotiations with Iran” …
A review of these newspapers reveals a consensus [—] all sources agree that the sole and direct motivation behind this decision is “the American desire to serve the course of negotiations with Iran, either by creating a suitable regional climate for negotiations or by preventing further escalation in the confrontation with Tehran.”
New Era of Lebanese Politics with Lebanon-Israeli Talks — Lebanon distances itself from Iran; Hezbollah’s weakened role (NOW Lebanon, 14 April):
Lebanon’s ambassador to Washington, Nada Hamadeh Moawad, and her Israeli counterpart Yechiel Leiter [met] in Washington … The meeting is meant to prepare for future direct negotiations … “This is something that we wouldn’t have thought was possible a few years back,” Hussain Abdul-Hussain, research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told NOW. A lower-level civil track last year, led by Simon Karam on the Lebanese side, helped lay the groundwork. But the upcoming talks mark a higher-level, official step, with Moawad reporting to President Aoun. “This is as official as it could get now,” [he] added … [Ambassador] Moawad is described not only as a modern and competent woman, but also as someone who “represents a broad segment” of Lebanese society, former Lebanese parliamentarian Basem Shabb told NOW. Beirut’s ambassador to the U.S., he added, embodies a liberal and modern vision of Lebanon, in contrast to Hezbollah’s more conservative and rigid image.
Direct talks with Israel were long considered impossible in Lebanon. The government “broke a taboo. And once the taboo is broken, there’s no going back,” Shabb said … Analysts say this reflects that Beirut is asserting authority over Hezbollah and reducing Iranian influence … Lebanon’s decision to negotiate with Israel was also largely driven by Lebanese PM Nawaf Salam. Historically, it has been the Christians who have been closer to Israel … With a major Sunni figure standing up for the talks, there is a new dimension … “In the past, everyone negotiated with Hezbollah”, Shabb said … Israel likewise has made clear it does not want to negotiate with Hezbollah. … The talks also underline the demise of the militia’s power. “If Hezbollah really had full control, this meeting would not be happening,” [Abdul-Hussain] argued. According to [him], Israel’s buffer zone will be dependent on Hezbollah’s disarmament. “If Lebanon wants its land back, it has to disarm Hezbollah” … “You have to get every Lebanese who does not support Hezbollah on board to demand that Hezbollah surrenders its arms to the Lebanese army”, [he] argued.
Minor edits have been made during translations for clarity.
Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat, founder and director of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum
