The strategic role of Lebanon in US-Iran negotiations

A memorandum of understanding was signed last week between the US and Iran, providing for the continuation of talks aimed at ending the war within 60 days. The agreement, which was expected to be signed on June 19 but was delayed due to developments in Lebanon, has created hope for peace on one hand, while on the other, it has brought about debates regarding how long the process will take and whether it can reach a permanent conclusion. Despite this, the fact that the parties have returned to the negotiating table is seen as an important development for regional stability.

The memorandum of understanding includes clauses such as the US and Iran not initiating any war or military operation against each other, ending conflicts on all fronts including Lebanon, protecting Lebanon's territorial integrity, and the parties not interfering in each other's internal affairs and respecting sovereign rights.

Furthermore, the US lifting the naval blockade within 30 days, Iran ensuring the safety of ship passage in the Persian Gulf, Iran not obtaining nuclear weapons, and the establishment of a mechanism for the dilution of enriched uranium are among the important headings of the agreement. In return, it is envisaged that arrangements will be made regarding the release of Iran's frozen assets and that various exemptions will be provided in the fields of oil, banking, insurance, and transportation until sanctions are completely lifted.

Looking at the content of the memorandum of understanding, it is seen that the process is largely built on economic steps and the easing of sanctions. This shows that economic tools are intended to be primarily deployed in solving problems in the political and security fields.

However, the negotiations are being conducted in the shadow of a serious, long-standing trust issue. The US wants to maintain pressure on Iran by keeping the war option on the agenda and strengthen its hand at the negotiating table. The Iranian delegation, on the other hand, drew attention with the symbolic messages it gave during the talks. Although they know English, their use of their native language can be evaluated as an emphasis on their national identity and state traditions.

One of the most notable issues during the talks has been the claims that the parties are nearing a compromise on the liquidation of Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles. However, the negotiations are not limited only to the nuclear program. US President Donald Trump's statement that tougher steps could be taken if Iran does not stop its proxy forces in Lebanon shows that the issue of Lebanon is also one of the important headings of the negotiations.

At this point, Lebanon stands out as an important element that can reduce or increase tension again. Iran's insistence on the Lebanon issue is seen by Israel as a threat to its own security. In this direction, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that Israeli forces will remain in Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria as long as they deem necessary.

What Distinguishes This Negotiation from Previous Ones?

The current negotiation process differs from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in the past in significant ways. The JCPOA was an agreement mainly aimed at limiting Iran's nuclear activities. The current process, in addition to the nuclear program, covers broader political and economic issues such as the status of the Strait of Hormuz, oil exports, the lifting of sanctions, and Iran's proxy forces in the region.

Unlike the JCPOA, the Trump administration also wants to make a new agreement that will be named after itself and that it can present as a political success. For this reason, the US is trying to keep Iran at the negotiating table within the framework of the conditions it has set. However, the mistrust that has been going on for years between the two countries makes it difficult not only for negotiations but also for reaching a permanent agreement. Indeed, Iran sees the US and Israel as the greatest security threat in the region. Therefore, the steps Iran will take regarding the nuclear program will largely depend on regional developments.

The Lebanon Condition

Lebanon has become one of the most important headings affecting the US-Iran negotiations. Although the memorandum seems to directly concern the relations between the US and Iran, Israel's operations against Lebanon and the issue of a ceasefire occupy an important place in the talks.

It is understood that Iran's attitude regarding the opening or closing of the Strait of Hormuz may also be shaped depending on the course of the negotiations and developments in Lebanon. This shows that the Lebanon issue is important not only in terms of security but also in terms of energy and trade routes.

On the other hand, Israel's continuation of its operations in Lebanon and the US's inability to be sufficiently effective on Israel in this regard are seen as a factor that damages the credibility of the US in the eyes of Iran. Some reports published in the Israeli press contain assessments that a possible agreement to be made between the US and Iran negatively affects the talks on the Israel-Lebanon line.

How the negotiations between the US and Iran will conclude remains uncertain. Due to the trust issue that has been going on for years between the two countries, it does not seem easy to reach an agreement, especially on the nuclear program and sanctions. Besides this, the Lebanon issue continues to be an important bargaining subject between the parties and stands out as one of the headings that could affect the future of the negotiations.

Iran's bringing the Lebanon issue to the forefront is important in terms of showing how it views regional developments. Iran is trying to make other problems in the region a part of the negotiation process, not limited only to issues such as the nuclear program and sanctions.

The US, on the other hand, is trying to achieve results with minimal damage by protecting its interests within the new balances that have emerged, rather than being a party that only imposes its own conditions in this process. Iran, having sat at the negotiating table after the conflicts it experienced with the US and Israel, has also used this opportunity to bring regional problems to the agenda. For this reason, it can be said that by specifically highlighting the Lebanon issue, Iran wants to see how willing the US is on this matter.

In conclusion, the fate of these negotiations will be determined not only by the nuclear program or sanctions, but also by whether the parties can find common ground on regional issues. Therefore, the Lebanon issue seems to continue to be one of the fundamental topics that will determine the future of US-Iran relations in the coming period.