Why the Lebanon-Israel ceasefire is ‘in name only’

Nearly three weeks into a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, escalating attacks and widening incursions are exposing major cracks in an agreement that analysts say was never going to ultimately halt the violence.

The deal was meant to pause reignited fighting between the countries after Hezbollah fired at Israel on March 2 in support of Iran, the Shia militant group’s main backer, which the U.S. and Israel started attacking on Feb. 28. Israel then invaded Lebanon in March.

But the two have continued trading fire even after the agreement, announced on April 16, with Israel issuing evacuation orders for dozens of towns and villages in southern Lebanon since then. On Wednesday, it struck Beirut’s southern suburbs for the first time since the ceasefire took effect. 

That’s led some political analysts to conclude the deal is more symbolic in nature, working largely to contain the scope of fighting and as a diplomatic measure rather than to fully pause hostilities.

“It’s a ceasefire in name only — and probably more accurately, it’s a limited de-escalation,” David Wood, senior Lebanon analyst at the International Crisis Group, said from Beirut.

A 2nd front in a larger war

The Israel-Lebanon war has become a second front in the U.S. and Israel’s wider war against Iran, with both ceasefire deals widely described as fragile and potentially on the brink of collapse.

Tehran has said any ​deal to end the wider war must also halt fighting in Lebanon. Although Washington has maintained that ⁠the issues are separate, U.S. President Donald Trump has faced pressure to broker a deal.

“What was the reason that Trump pushed suddenly for a ceasefire in Lebanon?” said Wood. “He was clearly linked to the negotiations with Iran, and his desire to unblock the Strait of Hormuz.”

Similar deals elsewhere have also ultimately failed in maintaining a break in violence, including in Gaza, where hundreds of people have been killed in Israeli attacks since the October 2025 ceasefire, which both sides have accused each other of violating.

The stability of the ceasefire is further complicated by the question of whether Israel can accomplish its stated goals in the region.

“Despite its stated intention to do so, Israel still has not managed to completely limit Hamas as a military threat,” said Wood. “And, therefore, it’s difficult to imagine how it could completely remove Hezbollah as a military threat purely by using violence.”

Meanwhile, the Iran-U.S. agreement continues to be tested, with both sides launching strikes in recent days and claiming control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Deeper conflicts

The conflict between Lebanon and Israel runs deeper than any one ceasefire agreement may be able to address, with the two countries technically in a state of war since the latter nation was founded in 1948. There, too, it is unclear whether either Israel or Hezbollah can accomplish their stated goals.

Israel says it wants to permanently disarm the group. But its continued invasion of Lebanon undermines the latter country’s government, which has articulated its own plans for disarmament.

Israeli troops remain in the south of Lebanon under a roughly 10-kilometre, self-described “security buffer zone,” saying it aims to protect northern Israel from Hezbollah militants embedded in civilian areas. Still, the military has forced out Lebanese residents from towns and villages beyond it.

“Every single one of these operations allows Hezbollah to point to its supporters, and perhaps other Lebanese, and say, ‘Here’s all the evidence you need that diplomacy doesn’t work.”

The only solution to end the war is disarming Hezbollah, said Hanin Ghaddar, Friedmann senior fellow at the Washington Institute, which advocates for U.S. interests in the Middle East.

The Lebanese government has recently pushed to do so, with Hezbollah in February rejecting its decision to grant the army at least four months to advance the second phase of a nationwide disarmament plan. The group said it would not accept what it sees as a move serving Israel.

“They are committed — they did it; for the first time, Lebanon delegitimized Hezbollah’s weapons, which is a big deal,” Ghaddar said. “Now, we are stuck between delegitimizing Hezbollah’s weapons and actually implementing this policy in action.”

Meanwhile, Hezbollah says it will strike Israeli troops for as long as the country continues its attacks in the south. (Many view the group’s actions as attacks aimed at undermining the Lebanese government’s direct engagement with Israel.)

“While the U.S. president has forced through what he describes as a ceasefire — in reality, neither of the belligerents wants to be completely bound by it, and this helps to explain why they’ve continued to attack each other despite having entered into a supposed truce,” Wood said.

Hezbollah has said as much, stating it would not abide by any agreement from Lebanon-Israel talks. A day after the deal was extended for three weeks, the group called it “meaningless” due to Israel’s continued operations.

More than 2,600 Lebanese have been killed with some 8,000 injured in Israeli attacks since March 2, according to the Health Ministry. Israel’s offensive in Lebanon has caused widespread destruction, particularly in southern Lebanon, and forced some 1.2 million people from their homes. Some residents have returned to their homes in the region since April 17, despite Israeli troops’ presence there.

Israeli authorities say 17 soldiers and two civilians have been killed in Hezbollah attacks.

Stability unlikely without broader political deal

While ceasefires may not always necessarily completely end fighting, the current deal in Lebanon is serving as a diplomatic tool for the U.S., which is facing mounting pressure to end its war against Iran that has resulted in a major energy crisis.

“Trump wants to say that, ‘I achieved the peace deal between two countries who’ve been at war for decades.’ This is the big, big, big, big take of it,” Ghaddar said.

A peace deal would also follow the U.S. goal of getting rid of Hezbollah, as it would only be achieved through disarmament, she said.

“Hezbollah at the end of the day, it is an [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] faction. So, with [the U.S.] war in Iran, to see that Iran has lost one of the main bargaining chips, it’s a big deal.”

Speaking to reporters at the White House Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he thinks a peace deal between Israel and Lebanon is “imminently achievable,” but that Hezbollah remains a problem.

Lebanon is seeking a permanent deal with Israel that would put an end to a decades-long cycle of violent flareups, while stopping short ​of saying it wants a peace agreement as it looks to avoid backlash across sectarian and political lines.

Paul Salem, a Beirut-based senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, says it’s difficult to see fighting completely stop in Lebanon unless the wider regional Gulf war ends, which would apply significantly more pressure on Tel Aviv to do the same in Lebanon.

“Trump has enough leverage on [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] to tell him to stop completely, and [he] would have to … for a while. But Trump has not reached that point.”

Wood says he doesn’t believe that under current circumstances Israel will be able to force Hezbollah’s disarmament through military means alone.

“So, for that reason, [Israel] … will eventually need to find, or probably need to find, some kind of diplomatic complement to its military operations.”

Until then, Lebanon faces the continued threat of Israeli military escalation, he said, leaving its people at the mercy of Trump’s continued personal intervention.

“And that, of course, is a very fragile guarantee for Lebanon, indeed.”