A framework agreement signed on Friday between Israel and Lebanon, mediated by the United States, has triggered an immediate domestic political crisis in Beirut. The deal makes the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon contingent on the verified disarmament of Hezbollah and other non-state armed groups. Hezbollah’s deputy political council head Mahmoud Qmati declared the accord “born dead” and vowed to “confront it with all possible means,” while Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri warned he and a large parliamentary bloc would block its passage through constitutional institutions. President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, by contrast, have defended the agreement as a first step toward restoring state sovereignty.

Viewed from Beirut, the accord has exposed a fundamental rift within the Lebanese state. Berri, in remarks published by the pro-Hezbollah daily Al-Akhbar, described the deal as “worse than the May 17 Agreement” and accused its drafters of seeking to ignite sectarian strife. He recounted telling Salam to “back out of this agreement” and cautioned that any attempt to undermine the Lebanese army or its commander would be met with a firm response. Hezbollah officials, while ruling out street protests or resignation from the government for now, insisted the group would retain its weapons and rely on the parallel US-Iran diplomatic track—the so-called Islamabad process—and Iranian pressure to force an Israeli withdrawal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to reporters, framed the deal as a historic achievement that sidelines Iran and legitimises an open-ended Israeli military presence in a “security zone” until Hezbollah is disarmed.

Analysts in London and Beirut point to a structural contradiction that risks entrenching a stalemate. Fawaz Gerges of the London School of Economics described the agreement as “born dead,” arguing that it imposes an unattainable condition on a Lebanese state incapable of coercing Hezbollah. Michael Young, a Beirut-based analyst, noted that the deal “creates a structure that allows the Israelis to remain indefinitely.” This assessment is reinforced by the fact that a separate US-Iran memorandum of understanding, signed a week earlier, explicitly called for an immediate end to fighting on all fronts and respect for Lebanon’s territorial integrity—language that Iranian officials and Hezbollah cite to demand an unconditional Israeli withdrawal. According to a report by Axios citing US, Israeli and Lebanese officials, the negotiations in Washington were accelerated precisely because both Israel and Lebanon saw the US-Iran deconfliction cell on Lebanon as legitimising Tehran’s role, prompting them to finalise their own agreement to keep Iran out of the process.

The path forward remains blocked. Berri has made clear the agreement will not pass through parliament, where he commands a substantial bloc, while Hezbollah’s rejection leaves the Lebanese army without the capacity to implement the disarmament provisions. The deal contains no fixed timeline for Israeli withdrawal, linking it instead to a security handover that the Lebanese armed forces are not equipped to enforce. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance personally pressed both sides to conclude the deal, but the resulting text has, according to Lebanese political figures, placed all the burden on Beirut while granting Israel diplomatic cover for a prolonged occupation. The dossier now moves to a domestic confrontation in Lebanon, with Hezbollah and its allies betting on the Islamabad track and Iranian leverage to alter the terms, while the government in Beirut faces the immediate test of whether it can sustain its commitment to an agreement that its own parliament speaker has vowed to bury.