Tripartite Joint Statement Issued, Israeli Military Launches New Strikes, Fragile Ceasefire Achieved Amidst Fire in Lebanon

[Global Times Correspondent in Egypt Huang Peizhao, Global Times Special Correspondent Zhen Xin] On the 3rd, Lebanon, Israel, and the United States issued a joint statement stating that Israel and Lebanon agreed to implement a ceasefire, provided that Hezbollah completely stops its attacks and fully withdraws from the area south of the Litani River. According to Reuters, this news adds positive expectations for finalizing a comprehensive agreement and ending the U.S.-Israel military actions against Iran. Al Jazeera commented that whether the ceasefire can be maintained is the biggest question. Hezbollah is not a formal signatory, which creates uncertainty in the implementation of the agreement; the Lebanese public generally lacks trust in the agreement, and many displaced persons worry that the Israeli military will not truly cease military operations.

Domestic political contradictions in Lebanon may intensify

Representatives from Lebanon, Israel, and the United States held the fourth high-level trilateral meeting in Washington from the 2nd to the 3rd. According to the joint statement issued after the meeting, both Lebanon and Israel agreed to quickly advance the establishment of a "pilot zone." Within the "pilot zone," the Lebanese Armed Forces will exercise exclusive control over the territory, excluding all "non-state actors."

The Israeli side reiterated in the joint statement that only by disarming Hezbollah and dismantling its infrastructure throughout Lebanon can Israel ensure its security and territorial integrity. Lebanon, on the other hand, reiterated the necessity of mutual respect for internationally recognized borders, the urgency of fully implementing a cessation of hostilities, and emphasized the fundamental principles of territorial integrity and complete national sovereignty. The United States emphasized in the statement that any agreement regarding the cessation of hostilities must be directly reached by the two governments under U.S. mediation and cannot be conducted through any other independent channels.

According to the Iranian Mehr News Agency on the 4th, Iranian Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian reiterated Iran's support for Hezbollah, stating that any process aimed at ending the U.S.-Israel war against Iran must include Lebanon, emphasizing that these two fronts are inseparable and part of a common regional war, "either the war ends simultaneously in both countries, or it does not end at all."

Lebanon's Al-Mustaqbal newspaper reported on the 4th that while Lebanon welcomes the ceasefire, it is concerned about potential damage to its sovereignty. The ongoing war has placed immense pressure on Lebanon's economy and society, and if the ceasefire ultimately evolves into a political process forcing Hezbollah to disarm, domestic political contradictions may further intensify.

U.S.-Iran negotiations filled with uncertainty

Israel's Minister of National Security and far-right politician Itamar Ben-Gvir criticized the U.S.-mediated ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon on the 4th, calling it a "serious mistake." AFP reported on the 4th that Ben-Gvir questioned the enforceability of the agreement, believing that Hezbollah would not genuinely withdraw from southern Lebanon and that the Lebanese government is not trustworthy.

Additionally, there are differences of opinion between Trump and Netanyahu regarding Iran. On the 3rd local time, Netanyahu stated in an interview with the U.S. Consumer News and Business Channel that he speaks with Trump every two days, and both share common goals, including preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and "disarming Hezbollah and demilitarizing Lebanon." When discussing the Iran conflict, Netanyahu stated that how the conflict ultimately ends "remains an open question," but Israel will continue to safeguard its security interests.

On the same day, Trump confirmed in a broadcast interview that he used profanity during a phone call with Netanyahu on Monday, angrily accusing Netanyahu of jeopardizing peace negotiations with Iran. Bloomberg analyzed that the U.S. and Israel have divergent views on how to end this war, and this disagreement is jeopardizing U.S.-Iran negotiations.

CNN reported on the 4th that just hours after Israel and Lebanon agreed to implement a ceasefire, Israel launched a new round of strikes against Lebanon. According to the Lebanese National News Agency on the 3rd, the Israel Defense Forces conducted a drone strike in the Tyre area of southern Lebanon that resulted in the deaths of six people on local roads. CNN stated that the ceasefire agreement reached amid gunfire is fragile.

Israel expressed its intention to continue occupying the Beaufort Castle and claimed it would not allow residents to return home, continuing to dismantle "terrorist infrastructure." Observers warned that "forced eviction" and "permanent refusal" of residents to return home constitute war crimes.

U.S. presidential war powers questioned

Reuters reported on the 3rd that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution that restricts the president's war powers, demanding that Trump end military actions against Iran and that any future military actions against Iran must receive congressional authorization.

Since the U.S. launched military actions against Iran in conjunction with Israel at the end of February, this is the fourth time the House has voted on a resolution to limit the president's war powers, and it is the first time the House has passed a related resolution. The vote result was 215 in favor and 208 against. Four Republican representatives voted in favor of the resolution along with Democrats.

According to CNN and other media, this resolution is a "joint resolution" that must be unanimously passed by both the House and Senate to take effect. Joint resolutions do not require the president's signature, and the president cannot veto them, but according to the Senate website, joint resolutions do not have the force of law. Therefore, some media believe that the passage of this resolution is more symbolic, reflecting dissatisfaction with Trump's war strategy.