Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

The Embassy

Why Donald Trump Shouldn’t Extend Joe Biden’s Lebanon-Israel Ceasefire Deal

Merkava tank. Image credit: Creative Commons.
Merkava tank. Image credit: Creative Commons.

The world witnessed one of the last installments of President Joe Biden’s broken and misguided policy in the Middle East on November 26. The President announced a pointless 60-day cessation of violence between Israel and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah. The Trump administration would be foolish to extend it following the January 26 expiration date. 

After a year of diplomatic efforts, the U.S. mediated a 60-day ceasefire between Israeli and Lebanese officials. It requires Israeli and Hezbollah forces to withdraw from southern Lebanon. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are expected to fill the void left by the withdrawals, secure the Israeli-Lebanese border, and prevent future Hezbollah attacks on Israel by disarming them. The United States and France are tasked with monitoring the ceasefire. According to President Biden’s announcement on November 26, the ceasefire is the initial step toward resolving the conflict in the region.  

Since its announcement, the ceasefire has made little sense and has been relatively ineffective.

The 60-day ceasefire has not stopped the violence or realized the stipulations.

In December, Hezbollah launched mortars at Israeli soldiers. On January 10, an Israeli drone strike killed 5 Hezbollah fighters. On January 12, Israel targeted Hezbollah weapons. Hezbollah maintains many of its arms. Israeli and Hezbollah forces remain in southern Lebanon, preventing the full deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in the region.    

The ceasefire’s ineffectiveness is not surprising.  

The ceasefire stipulates measures that should have been implemented 18 years ago. It is basically a second attempt at realizing UN Resolution 1701. The UN resolution provided guidelines for ending the 2006 conflict started by Hezbollah and preventing a future conflict. Like the November 26 ceasefire, the Lebanese government agreed to the resolution. And like 18 years ago, the Lebanese are failing to hold up their end of the agreement.  

Why should a different outcome be expected after 18 years? Two actors central to the ceasefire’s success—the Lebanese state and Hezbollah—have not evolved in their thinking or changed their behavior.

The Lebanese state remains derelict in its duties. Its ineptitude has grown since 2006. In the last five years, the Lebanese state has overseen a historic economic collapse, escalating corruption, the cratering of its medical services, and the inability to provide more than a few hours of electricity.

Now, after catastrophic failures, the state will suddenly fulfill the measures of the ceasefire by deploying, disarming, and securing the Lebanese-Israeli border? Expecting the state to ensure anything is laughable. Only four years ago, the Lebanese state was complicit in one of the largest non-nuclear blasts in history. It failed to secure explosive material in the port of Beirut properly. The explosion killed hundreds and injured thousands of Lebanese.

Then there is Hezbollah, the initiator of both wars. The militia remains resolute in refusing to co-exist and compromise with Israel. Despite being severely degraded in the last 15 months, the militia’s leadership expressed its intention to continue to oppose the Israeli state. Secretary General Naim Qassem recently stated: “The resistance in Lebanon remains strong, ready, and committed” and threatened Israel “not to test our patience further.”

These are not the words of an organization preparing to submit to the will of the state and surrender its weapons. As the expression goes: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.” Hezbollah refused to comply in 2006. It is refusing in 2025.

The ceasefire also delegates the thankless job of monitoring to the United States and France. For the U.S., it requires the government to admonish its ally for violations prompted by a terrorist organization and admonish a Lebanese state incapable or unwilling to fulfill its word. What exactly is the United States achieving here besides wasting its time and creating friction with an ally?   

The rationale for the ceasefire has been suspect from the start.

Since Israel escalated its daily attacks against Hezbollah in September, the militia experienced loss after loss. Israel decimated its command structure and communications systems while eliminating charismatic Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. The militia was reeling, down but not out.

The ceasefire allowed the organization to catch its breath, recover, and regroup. Why give a reprieve to an internationally recognized terrorist organization with American blood on its hands? Why give a second chance to a group that has repeatedly disrupted the lives of many Lebanese? Whose interests exactly are being advanced by the ceasefire? American? Lebanese? Hezbollah?  

The ceasefire also raises questions about the benefits to Israel.

Hezbollah’s unprovoked attacks displaced tens of thousands of Israelis from the northern border area. Given Hezbollah’s continued unwillingness to co-exist with Israel and fully cooperate with the ceasefire, can Israel safely return its residents to the northern border? Furthermore, Israel will be portrayed as the aggressor and initiator of another round of violence if Hezbollah refuses to cooperate with the ceasefire stipulations.  

The long-term objective of the ceasefire is also farcical.

President Biden believes the ceasefire can build trust for additional diplomacy and agreements between Israel, Lebanon, and the rest of the Arab world. Biden’s thinking is deluded, and he knows it. He expressed a similar idea in 2022 when Israel and Lebanon agreed to delineate their shared maritime border and the division of Mediterranean gas fields. After only one year, an unprovoked Hezbollah attack triggered more than 400 days of violence with Israel.

The 60-day ceasefire negotiated by President Biden has been and remains baffling. It would be baffling for the Trump administration to extend it.  

About the Author: 

Eric Bordenkircher, Ph.D., is a research fellow at UCLA’s Center for Middle East Development. He tweets at @UCLA_Eagle. The views represented in this piece are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of UCLA or the Center for Middle East Development.

Written By

Eric Bordenkircher, Ph.D., is a research fellow at UCLA’s Center for Middle East Development. His twitter handle is @UCLA_Eagle. The views represented in this piece are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of UCLA or the Center for Middle East Development.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement