TEHRAN — One might say, in undiplomatic language born of sheer necessity: “From the very beginning, Lebanon was never truly under a ceasefire.” One could ignore the Pakistani mediator’s X post and the historical record of these negotiations. One could, once again, adopt the breaking of promises as a standard operating procedure. But it is impossible to expect that while Beirut burns under a rain of bombs, Iran will remain silent or that dialogue with Tehran will yield any meaningful result.

The announcement by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif regarding the mutual acceptance of a two-week ceasefire by Iran and the United States, and the imminent commencement of talks to reach a final agreement, contained several fundamental points.

Chief among them was the emphasis that the ceasefire had been accepted by Iran, the U.S., and their respective allies, and the explicit stress that this truce would encompass Lebanon.

Immediately afterward, a post by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was published on X.

While expressing gratitude to Prime Minister Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, the esteemed Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan, for their tireless efforts to end the war in the region, the Iranian top diplomat stated: "In response to the brotherly request of PM Sharif in his tweet, and considering the request by the U.S. for negotiations based on its 15-point proposal as well as announcement by POTUS about acceptance of the general framework of Iran's 10-point proposal as a basis for negotiations, I hereby declare on behalf of Iran's Supreme National Security Council: If attacks against Iran are halted, our Powerful Armed Forces will cease their defensive operations."

A screenshot of this statement was subsequently posted by Donald Trump on his Truth Social.

This exchange signaled a clear understanding rooted in the proposals of both parties as the foundation for the ceasefire and subsequent negotiations. Although Araghchi’s post did not explicitly name Lebanon, in every published version of the 10-point proposal, regardless of which one the U.S. chooses to adopt as its benchmark, the issue of Lebanon and Hezbollah stands at the very forefront.

Yet, only hours after these diplomatic exchanges, unprecedented and heavy aerial strikes were launched against Hezbollah in the Dahiyeh district of Beirut.

Some sources described these attacks as the most intense since 1982. According to the Lebanese Ministry of Health, over 300 people were martyred and over 1,100 wounded.

Simultaneously, Netanyahu’s office issued a statement claiming that the ceasefire did not cover Hezbollah or Lebanon, saying that the war on that front would continue. It was expected that the U.S. side would correct this stance, which directly contradicted earlier statements, and restrain Netanyahu’s criminal actions.

Instead, adopting an entirely different approach, Trump, Vice President Vance, and White House Spokeswoman Leavitt, utilized language beneath diplomatic dignity to claim that no agreement had ever existed regarding Lebanon’s inclusion in the ceasefire.

What is striking is that the American side focused on the assertion that Iran had "misunderstood" the situation, while completely ignoring the subsequent clarifications from the Pakistani Prime Minister and the Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S., the latter of whom explicitly reaffirmed the agreement to halt the war in Lebanon.

In its negotiations with the U.S. over the past fifteen years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently encountered the same pattern: either certain U.S. administrations refuse to honor the commitments of their predecessors (as seen with the JCPOA), or they casually walk away from what they themselves previously accepted as common ground, denying the very history of the matter (as seen in negotiations prior to the 12-day war in 2025 and the current campaign of aggression).

This extra-legal and unethical orientation in American diplomacy has turned dialogue with the U.S. into a futile exercise for the Iranian government, one that yields no outcome and leads only to lost opportunities and the weakening of Iran’s position.

Driven by the Zionist regime's provocations and Netanyahu’s delusion that Iran would buckle or collapse under a brief assault, the United States waged a war that most analysts and politicians now concede was a failure of their strategic goals.

Furthermore, they jeopardized global energy security and embroiled the Persian Gulf nations, whose security they claimed to be protecting, in an unexpected war.

One of the most critical factors in neutralizing the American plan to trigger a collapse of the Islamic Republic was the social cohesion of the Iranian people and their presence in the streets.

This irresponsible approach ensures that this large and influential segment of society, drawing on past experiences, will offer no support for negotiations founded on broken promises. Consequently, the possibility of reaching any agreement becomes even slimmer, rendering the already fragile conditions even more intractable.

If the ceasefire in Lebanon is not valid, despite what has appeared in the mediator’s published documents and despite Iran’s emphasis, then Iran’s support for Hezbollah and the Lebanese nation cannot be considered a violation of the two-week truce.

It is impossible to accuse Iran on the one hand of misunderstanding the terms of the ceasefire agreement and labeling it ignorant, while on the other hand demanding that it observe the ceasefire in an area the agreement does not cover.

If the U.S. government truly seeks to resolve regional issues, it must first define and restrict Netanyahu’s role in its foreign policy before participating in regional summits. Naturally, in this climate, Iran cannot negotiate an existential war without a horizon for resolving all its dimensions; otherwise, the U.S. remains trapped in a cycle where Netanyahu’s interventions lead to harsher confrontations, forcing Washington to bear the costs of the Zionist prime minister’s futile dreams.

If Trump and the U.S. are genuinely prepared to negotiate, they must first grasp this reality: the relationship between the Islamic Revolution and the Resistance movement is not that of a godfather and its political satellites, entities to be sacrificed for political gain or abandoned in times of hardship.

This is not a relationship based on the logic of self-interest, akin to how the Zionist regime and the U.S. have historically treated Kurdish groups.

From this perspective, within the framework of the political thought of the Islamic Republic, Dahiyeh stands as a capital of Iran, and its importance is no less than that of Tehran.

This does not signify interference in Lebanon's internal affairs; rather, it reflects the authenticity of the Lebanese approach within the Resistance Front, represented by Hezbollah, which receives no less attention in Iran than it does in Lebanon and will remain a live, ongoing issue in any potential dialogue or agreement.