Cairo warns Beirut: Any agreement with Israel must include troop withdrawal

Cairo has warned Beirut that any future agreement must be based on a framework ensuring the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, according to Egyptian sources cited by Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar.

In recent days, Lebanese leadership has received clear messages through various communication channels between Cairo and Beirut regarding the mechanisms for negotiations with Israel. These messages are described as advisory in tone but also carry warnings about the inevitable consequences of the next phase if Lebanon’s current approach to talks remains unchanged.

According to Egyptian officials who communicated with counterparts in Lebanon’s presidential administration and foreign ministry, the required approach should be built on parallel tracks. The primary focus, they said, should be securing a clear US commitment to halt all military operations on Lebanese territory in exchange for agreeing to a security-based negotiation framework that would include the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon.

The messages also strongly rejected any attempt to impose the disarmament of Hezbollah through military force via the Lebanese army, either now or at any future stage. Egyptian officials believe that such a US-backed approach would open an internal front inside Lebanon, threatening domestic stability. They stressed the need to prioritise strengthening and equipping the Lebanese army for border defence rather than involving it in confrontation with Hezbollah.

Cairo further urged Beirut to present a structured negotiation framework that includes security guarantees, primarily in the form of US assurances of Israel’s “goodwill” through a full withdrawal from southern villages in exchange for the Lebanese army’s redeployment. On this basis, a field-level arrangement is envisioned in which Hezbollah refrains from any operations against settlements or border villages unless Israel initiates attacks on Lebanese territory.

Egyptian warnings also emphasised caution in the post-agreement phase, assessing that the security situation would remain fragile for several months. They stressed that obliging the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah by force is practically unfeasible and could be used as a pretext to justify continued Israeli strikes, a factor that must be taken into account during negotiations.

Egyptian sources told the newspaper that information received from Washington regarding the expected Lebanon–Israel agreement does not include decisive US guarantees to stop strikes deep inside Lebanese territory. This is attributed to Israel retaining the right of “self-defence” against what it considers threats inside Lebanon. This includes strikes on sites classified as Hezbollah military activity—whether training operations or weapons transfers—and even the targeting of leaders deemed “legitimate targets” if the Lebanese state fails to act against them.

While Cairo continues to stress the need for a compromise formula to bring a final end to the conflict, the US approach—according to the same sources—is based on the assumption that security threats will persist and must be addressed. At the same time, uncertainty remains regarding the type of military support and equipment that would be provided to the Lebanese army in the next phase.

By Jeyhun Aghazada