TEHRAN – As bombs fall on Lebanon, a sudden invitation to talks emerges, but is it peace or a political ambush?

The Lebanese government seeks to hold direct talks with the Zionist regime in Washington. The negotiations, scheduled for Tuesday, have triggered alarm bells inside Lebanon as well as protests as the country is under the Israeli fire.  

The occupation regime's own statements reveal its opening position at the negotiating table: first, dismantle Hezbollah’s weapons; second, normalize relations “with us” and third, secure the Lebanese border “for us”.

The regime’s first demand, for the Lebanese government to assume responsibility for disarming Hezbollah, is a trap disguised as a security request. The regime knows that Hezbollah is deeply embedded in Lebanese society, both as a military force and a political bloc. By asking the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah, the Zionist regime is pushing Lebanon toward what it truly wants: for the Lebanese to turn on each other. 

This is not a metaphor for peace but an invitation to internal conflict and potential civil war. If Lebanon accepts this condition, it would be forced to fight its own citizens on behalf of a foreign occupier, tearing the country apart from within.

The second and third demands go even further. Normalization with the occupation regime would mean abandoning decades of Lebanese and Arab consensus rejecting formal ties with an entity that continues to occupy land and commit war crimes. 

As for securing the Lebanese border for the Israeli regime, this is what the regime wants the Lebanese government to do: achieve on behalf of Israeli occupation forces what they have failed to accomplish militarily. 

The regime cannot impose its will on the ground, so it seeks to extract through negotiation what it could not win through war. Taken together, these conditions are not about peace or stability. They are about subjugating Lebanon, dismantling its resistance, and turning it into a compliant neighbor, without any guarantee of withdrawal from the occupied Lebanese territory or any guarantees to end the aggression. 

Suddenly, after a sudden escalation from Donald Trump to “obliterate Iranian civilization,” a U.S.-backed Pakistani initiative emerged. Pakistan’s Prime Minister announced in a social media post that the U.S. and Iran agreed to a 15-day ceasefire for negotiations, explicitly stating it covers all allies, including Lebanon.

But this path soon grew complicated. Trump backtracked on including Lebanon in any regional truce deal, under political pressure from the Zionist regime to separate Lebanon from the broader framework and tie it to different terms.

To block a ceasefire, Netanyahu triggered fierce military escalation in Lebanon. The occupation regime’s military committed war crimes and crimes against humanity across Lebanon, with Netanyahu boasting of 160 airstrikes in just ten minutes.

Despite Iran’s insistence on linking Lebanon to a ceasefire and regional settlement, Lebanese officials suddenly insisted that only the Lebanese state can negotiate on Lebanon’s behalf. At the same time, reports emerged that the Israeli regime now accepts direct talks with Lebanon after a long refusal. 

This acceptance raises serious concerns about its timing and meaning. Is it paving the way for real negotiations as Lebanese leaders hope, or setting a new political-military trap that exposes Lebanon to existential danger?

The talks will come as the number of people killed by Israeli strikes has surpassed 2,000 since March 2, according to the Lebanese health ministry. 

Among the 2,020 killed are 165 children, 248 women and 85 health workers, the ministry said. Another 6,436 people have been wounded. This is the figure given by Sunday afternoon.

What are the risks if Lebanon accepts the Zionist regime’s negotiation offer? Major dangers threaten Lebanon’s existence and sovereignty. Without doubt, a dangerous trap is being laid. This is essentially what the occupation regime wants from negotiations:

First: Strip Lebanon of its strongest leverage by separating it from the regional war. Lebanon benefits from being part of the Pakistani-brokered ceasefire. The U.S. wants to end its war with Iran and reopen the Strait of Hormuz after heavy losses, and domestic pressure on Trump pushed him toward negotiations with Iran. 

Netanyahu wants to drag Lebanon into a separate track so the U.S. can later claim Lebanon is not included in the Pakistan-brokered ceasefire deal, something Trump hinted at when asked about the regime’s massacres in Lebanon despite a ceasefire. 

By being separated from the united front that stretches from Iran through Iraq and Yemen to Lebanon, Lebanon would consequently lose the critical leverage, which that collective stance provides.

Second: Negotiating under fire and replicating the Gaza model. The Israeli regime has explicitly said negotiations with Lebanon will happen under fire. This is meant to weaken Lebanon and its government, forcing terms through bombardment and siege. Worse, entering talks without a ceasefire means an uneven process where terms are imposed by power, not political logic.

Without a ceasefire, Lebanon will face daily massacres before each negotiation session, used by the occupation regime as direct pressure through escalation, airstrikes, and targeting civilians. The result: a negotiating table soaked in blood, with terms imposed by coercion.

If Lebanon negotiates without a ceasefire, the Zionist regime may impose a naval, land, and air blockade to force the Lebanese government into a surrender agreement, exactly the model the occupation regime applied in Gaza.

Third: Exploding Lebanon’s internal situation as a substitute for military victory.
What the Israeli regime couldn’t achieve on the battlefield, disarming Hezbollah, it will demand from the Lebanese government. The occupation regime’s ground war is not going as planned. Daily leaks from the regime’s military speak of field losses, Hezbollah ambushes, and surprise at the capabilities of the Lebanese resistance.

Hebrew media has quoted an Israeli military official saying disarming Hezbollah is unrealistic for the regime. Instead, to secure northern settlements, the Zionist regime wants a 2-3 km buffer zone inside Lebanon, completely empty of people, implemented through an agreement with Lebanon, literally.

There is no guarantee of withdrawing from Lebanese land, just as the Israeli regime has been operating in Syria. The Syrian government relied on America as a guarantor, yet that guarantee proved worthless. The Israeli military has not only fortified its occupation of the Golan Heights but has also expanded its occupation into the southwestern Syrian provinces of Quneitra, Sweida, and Daraa, all while Syria has no military assets left to resist. 

The occupation regime saw an opportunity and took it, steadily encroaching on Syrian territory without facing any consequence.

Without Hezbollah’s weapons, which serve as Lebanon’s only effective deterrent, the same process will unfold on Lebanese soil. For 15 months, the Lebanese government could not prevent Israeli aggression in southern Lebanon even as Hezbollah exercised strategic patience. 

If that deterrent is removed through direct talks with the Zionist regime, what has been happening in Syria will happen again in Lebanon. The occupation regime will face no obstacle to deepening its occupation of Lebanese land, just as it has been operating in Syria. 

No American guarantee will stop it, no international promise will reverse it, and no weakened Lebanese state will resist it. The result will not be peace, but a slow, steady annexation dressed in diplomatic clothes.