Lebanese President Joseph Aoun reaffirmed his commitment to direct negotiations with Israel and announced preparations for a third preparatory meeting in Washington [1].

This diplomatic push occurs amid severe internal political friction, as the Lebanese government attempts to navigate regional tensions while facing public opposition from powerful domestic factions.

The upcoming meeting in the U.S. capital will include Lebanon’s ambassador to the United States [1]. Aoun said that any potential settlement between Lebanon and Israel would be linked to the results of talks between the U.S. and Iran [1].

Not all Lebanese political leaders support this trajectory. Hassan Fazlallah, a representative of Hezbollah, said Saturday that his party rejects direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel [2]. This opposition highlights the deep divide between the presidency and the armed political wing of Hezbollah.

Conversely, some political figures have urged the president to move faster. Samir Geagea, leader of the Lebanese Forces, said that a meeting between President Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is necessary and should not be delayed [2].

The diplomatic efforts continue against a backdrop of continued violence. Recent airstrikes in southern Lebanon have resulted in 10 deaths [2].

Aoun continues to pursue the Washington-based preparatory track despite the lack of a domestic consensus. The president's strategy relies on the premise that regional stability depends on a broader agreement involving Tehran and Washington [1].

“Sوف نربط أي تسوية محتملة بين لبنان وإسرائيل بمخرجات التفاهم بين الولايات المتحدة وإيران.”

President Aoun's insistence on linking a Lebanon-Israel settlement to US-Iran talks suggests that Lebanon views its security architecture as inseparable from the broader geopolitical rivalry between Washington and Tehran. By coordinating through the U.S., Aoun is attempting to create a diplomatic shield against domestic opposition from Hezbollah, though the party's explicit rejection of direct talks indicates a significant risk of political instability or internal conflict if the presidency proceeds without their consent.