For decades, the Middle East has reminded American policymakers of a difficult truth: opportunities for lasting peace are rare, fragile and often overlooked until they are gone. Yet from conflict and crises, opportunities often arise. Today, one such opportunity exists between Lebanon and Israel, countries that have technically been at war since the establishment of Israel in 1948.
While much of the world’s attention has understandably focused on wars between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and between the US/Israel and Iran, a quieter but potentially historic diplomatic process has continued to advance. Through determined American engagement, Lebanon and Israel are pursuing a path that, only months ago, many believed was beyond reach.
Between April and August, Lebanese and Israeli officials have held seven rounds of direct talks mediated by the US, the latest round of which took place this week in Rome.
Progress has been deliberate rather than dramatic but is nonetheless persistent, despite ongoing Israeli strikes against Hezbollah, and Iranian efforts to derail the Israel-Lebanon diplomatic process with the US as Tehran continues to support and deploy Hezbollah.
A sovereign Lebanon and a secure Israel are mutually reinforcing objectives.
Rachel Brandenburg & Philippe Nassif
A meeting between the US president, Donald Trump, and his Lebanese counterpart, Joseph Aoun, on July 21 signaled a shared recognition that Lebanon’s future, Israel’s security, and America’s strategic interests are closely connected. Their discussions extended beyond immediate security concerns to encompass reconstruction, economic cooperation, stronger state institutions, expanded support for the Lebanese Armed Forces, and a broader strategic partnership between Washington and Beirut.
Too often, discussions about Lebanon and Israel have been framed as a choice between Lebanese sovereignty and Israeli security. That is a false choice; a sovereign Lebanon and a secure Israel are mutually reinforcing objectives.
A stronger Lebanese state that is capable of exercising authority throughout its territory, protecting its borders, and serving all of its citizens — and which acknowledges Israel as its neighbor, not its adversary — would contribute significantly to Israel’s security.
Similarly, an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory in the face of a quiet border free of missile, drone and rocket attacks can create the space necessary for Lebanon to rebuild its economy, restore investor confidence, and strengthen democratic institutions after years of political and economic turmoil. Neither objective can be fully realized without the other.
For Lebanon, this means continuing the difficult but essential work of strengthening national institutions, restoring public confidence in government, and ensuring that the state alone exercises legitimate authority over the use of force.
For Israel, it means recognizing that long-term security will ultimately be achieved not through perpetual war, occupation and instability across its northern frontier, but through the emergence of a capable Lebanese partner committed to enforcing its sovereignty, and disarming and diminishing the influence of Hezbollah.
The Lebanese Armed Forces occupy a central place in that vision. For decades, the army has remained one of Lebanon’s most respected national institutions and an indispensable partner of the US. But no country can achieve lasting stability while armed organizations operate within its borders but outside the authority of its government. Continued American support for the Lebanese army is not simply assistance to Lebanon, it is an essential investment in regional stability.
The negotiations now underway seek to establish the conditions for a fundamentally different future; one in which Israeli forces can withdraw in accordance with agreed security arrangements, displaced families on both sides of the border can safely return home, reconstruction can proceed, legitimate state institutions can expand their authority, and longstanding disputes can be addressed through diplomacy rather than confrontation.
Families in northern Israel and southern Lebanon deserve to live free from the constant threat of violence, and young Lebanese deserve to believe that they can find a future in their own country, rather than abroad.
There will be setbacks and disagreements, as Israel and Lebanon address the demands of their citizens and defend their own sovereignty. But the only alternative to long-term war and destruction is deliberate, sustained diplomacy.
A secure Israel, a sovereign Lebanon, and a strategic partnership between the US and both nations are not competing ambitions.
Rachel Brandenburg & Philippe Nassif
Every major diplomatic achievement in the Middle East has faced periods of uncertainty — the Camp David Accords, the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, and the Abraham Accords — and all required sustained American leadership. The present negotiations deserve the same perseverance and patience.
A successful outcome would demonstrate that determined diplomacy remains indispensable in a region where too many assume conflict is inevitable. It would reinforce the principle that strong state institutions are the only durable foundation for peace, and it would reflect the idea that American leadership can still yield real results.
A secure Israel, a sovereign Lebanon, and a strategic partnership between the US and both nations are not competing ambitions. Together, they represent a vision of a Middle East where governments, not militias, exercise legitimate authority; where disputes are resolved through negotiation rather than violence; and where stability creates opportunities for economic growth and regional cooperation.
Windows of opportunity in the Middle East, however, rarely remain open for long. The US has helped to open a window. For the sake of Lebanon, Israel and the wider region, they must not allow it to close.
BY: Writer Rachel Brandenburg is the Washington managing director of the Israel Policy Forum. Philippe Nassif is the chief operating officer of the American Task Force on Lebanon.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
