In three interviews with RT Arabic, Al-Manar, and Al-Qahera News, writer and political analyst Tawfiq Chouman offered a harsh assessment of the Lebanese and Iranian tracks, arguing that what is happening behind the scenes reveals a far deeper predicament than official statements suggest.
Lebanon Is Facing Negotiations With No Clear Way Forward
According to Chouman, Lebanon’s negotiating track with the Israeli occupation state started in a tunnel and is now stuck in a deadlock.
The Lebanese negotiating side still does not know when the eighth round will take place, what its agenda will be, or even whether it will actually be held.
And this is where the core problem lies: when the negotiating party is unable to determine the date or agenda of the next round, it means the process itself has entered a phase of uncertainty and paralysis.
More troubling is that, according to reports circulating, Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has informed the U.S. administration that the “pilot zones” model has failed.
If true, the implications are clear: there will be no redeployment of occupation forces and no serious steps of this kind.
Consequently, one of the key provisions of the framework agreement signed on June 26 has effectively been thrown into question.
But the more serious development is coming from Washington.
According to what is now being reported in the U.S. and Israeli media, Washington and Tel Aviv are moving toward an attempt to secure a UN Security Council resolution endorsing the framework agreement.
And this is where close attention is required:
The framework agreement, in its reported form, does not call for a ceasefire or the withdrawal of the occupation army from occupied Lebanese territory.
In other words, turning it into an international resolution may not simply be a procedural step. It could be an attempt to institutionalize a new political formula that does not give Lebanon what should be at the core of any settlement: an end to the aggression and a withdrawal.
And what about the United States?
Chouman points to a notable shift within the American debate itself, with a number of prominent U.S. thinkers and strategists beginning to speak openly about the limits of American power and its inability to resolve major global conflicts through military force, including the war against Iran.
That, in itself, is a significant indicator.
Because acknowledging the limits of Washington’s ability to achieve decisive outcomes amounts, in one way or another, to acknowledging that the war’s objectives were not achieved as planned.