Lebanese remain sceptical despite US-Iran ceasefire announcement

The announcement of a US-Iran ceasefire, even with the added claim that it includes an end to Israel’s war in Gaza, arrives at a moment of profound regional uncertainty, where skepticism in Lebanon is not just understandable but structurally justified. For decades, Lebanon has been a battleground for proxy conflicts between Iran-backed groups like Hezbollah and state actors such as Israel, with its population often bearing the brunt of the consequences. The ceasefire, if real, would mark a shift in one of the region’s most volatile flashpoints—but the Lebanese public’s hesitation reflects a deep mistrust rooted in decades of broken promises, undeclared wars, and the absence of durable political solutions. This skepticism is not merely emotional; it is informed by history. Lebanon has endured multiple cycles of escalation and de-escalation, each time watching as fragile truces collapse under the weight of unaddressed grievances. The 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire that left key issues unresolved, including the status of disputed border territories and the disarmament of armed groups. Similarly, the 2023 truce in southern Lebanon following the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel proved temporary, with sporadic clashes continuing to destabilize the area. The Lebanese public, already grappling with economic collapse and political paralysis, has little reason to believe this latest announcement will yield lasting peace. Beyond Lebanon, the ceasefire’s implications extend to the broader geopolitical chessboard. A reduction in hostilities between Israel and Iran-backed forces could ease pressure on the Biden administration, which faces mounting domestic criticism over its unwavering support for Israel amid rising civilian casualties in Gaza. For Iran, a de-escalation might offer a strategic pause, allowing it to consolidate influence in Syria and Iraq while avoiding direct military confrontation. Yet, the fragility of such arrangements underscores a troubling trend: the normalization of temporary truces in a region where permanent peace remains elusive. What comes next remains uncertain. Will this ceasefire hold, or will it collapse under the weight of unresolved tensions? Will Lebanon’s fragile institutions be able to capitalize on any period of calm, or will they remain paralyzed by internal divisions? And crucially, what assurances exist that this time, the promises made from distant capitals will translate into tangible security for the Lebanese people? Until those questions are answered, skepticism will remain the most rational response.