The United States and Iran have reached a deal to end their ongoing war, which includes ending military operations in Lebanon, sources said [1]. Despite the agreement’s terms on Lebanon, Israel announced its forces will remain deployed there indefinitely, challenging the deal’s scope [1].
Israeli affairs analyst Dan Perry suggested the US might overlook or pretend Israel cannot attack Hezbollah to secure the deal. Perry said, "The US ‘may pretend’ that Israel can’t attack Hezbollah ‘in order to get this deal done’" [2]. This view introduces ambiguity around Israel’s military freedom in Lebanon under the agreement.
On June 14, 2026, Perry explained that as the US-Iran deal took shape, the three parties—US, Iran, and Israel—had differing positions on Lebanon, complicating the peace process [2]. He highlighted the complexities behind reconciling Iran’s and the US’s stance with Israel’s regional security concerns.
While Tehran and Washington agree on ending operations in Lebanon, Israel’s declared indefinite military presence suggests friction remains over enforcing those terms [1]. The US may face pressure to balance maintaining the deal with managing its ally Israel’s regional actions.
The next development will depend on how Israel’s stance affects implementation of the ceasefire in Lebanon and whether the US clarifies its response to Israeli military operations.
