- June 22, 2026
- 2:12 pm
- Middle East
One of the most troubling outcomes of the US-Iran negotiations in Switzerland turned out to be related not only to Tehran’s nuclear program and not only to sanctions. The focus unexpectedly shifted to Lebanon — more precisely, Israel’s northern front, the war with Hezbollah, and the attempt to create a new international mechanism to control the cessation of hostilities.
But in this construct, there is a main question: where is Israel?
The first high-level negotiation session under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding concluded in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, at a resort above Lake Lucerne. The official joint statement by Qatar and Pakistan was published in Lucerne on June 22, 2026. It stated that representatives from the US, Iran, as well as two mediator countries — Qatar and Pakistan — participated in the meetings.
The summit started a day earlier, on June 21, 2026. The Qatari agency QNA reported that Doha was acting as a mediator, and the first meeting of the high-level committee was supposed to gather representatives from the US, Iran, Qatar, and Pakistan to advance towards a broader agreement.
What was decided in Lucerne
According to the official version, the negotiations took place in a “positive and constructive atmosphere.” The parties agreed to create a mechanism for continuing technical negotiations, as well as a High Level Committee — a high-level committee that should provide political oversight for further mediation.
Working groups are supposed to address several areas: Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions, monitoring, dispute resolution mechanisms, and other issues related to the implementation of the memorandum. A separate roadmap to a final agreement within 60 days was announced.
Another important point is the creation of a communication line through the Strait of Hormuz. Its task is to avoid incidents and misunderstandings to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels through one of the key routes of global energy.
But for Israel, another point became the most important: the parties agreed to create a de-confliction cell — a coordination cell for Lebanon. The official statement said that it is being created between the parties, the Lebanese Republic, and with the assistance of mediators to ensure compliance with the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon. Technical negotiations are to continue in Bürgenstock until the end of the week.
This is where a political problem arises.
Who was at the negotiating table
The American side at the negotiations was represented by Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner. The Iranian side was represented by the speaker of parliament Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. On the mediators’ side, the public materials mentioned the Prime Minister of Pakistan Shehbaz Sharif and the Prime Minister of Qatar Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani.
Formally, this looks like negotiations between the US and Iran with the mediation of Qatar and Pakistan. Lebanon appears as a separate participant in the mechanism for ceasing hostilities.
But Israel is not mentioned in this formula.
And this is not a technical detail. If it concerns Lebanon, it inevitably concerns Hezbollah, Iranian influence, Israel’s northern border, rockets, drones, evacuated residents of Galilee, and the security of dozens of Israeli settlements.
NAnews — Israel News draws attention to this very point: the mechanism that should concern the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon may be created without the direct inclusion of Israel in the official structure.
Why the absence of Israel is important
In diplomatic language, this may be called a coordination cell. In practice, for Israel, the question is much tougher: who will decide what constitutes a violation of the ceasefire? Who will record Hezbollah’s actions? Who will be responsible if drones, rockets, or anti-tank missiles fly again from Lebanese territory?
If the mechanism includes Iran, Lebanon, the US, Qatar, and Pakistan, but not Israel, there is a risk that decisions on the northern front will not be developed together with Israel but will effectively be imposed on it from above.
For Iran, this is a convenient scheme. Tehran gets the opportunity to influence the entire negotiation process through the Lebanese direction. A new escalation on the front, a statement by Hezbollah, an attack on Israel, or an accusation against Israel of violating the ceasefire regime — and negotiations on the nuclear program, sanctions, and regional de-escalation may again be under threat.
This is not a legal “veto right.” But it is a de facto lever of pressure.
Iran can not only discuss the nuclear program. It can simultaneously hold the Lebanese card in its hands. That is why the creation of a mechanism for Lebanon without direct mention of Israel does not look like a secondary point but as one of the key results of the summit.
Lebanon becomes a tool of pressure
According to AP, mediators Qatar and Pakistan reported “encouraging progress,” and the US and Iran agreed to create a de-confliction cell for Lebanon. The same report states that the negotiations were accompanied by tension due to statements by US President Donald Trump, and among the topics discussed were the Strait of Hormuz and the ceasefire in southern Lebanon.
Axios also wrote that the negotiations at the Lake Lucerne Summit were almost continuous, and one of the topics was de-escalation mechanisms in Lebanon and compliance with the ceasefire amid clashes between Hezbollah and Israeli forces in the south of the country.
Thus, Lebanon is no longer just a separate front. It becomes part of a big deal between Washington and Tehran.
For Israel, this is especially dangerous because Hezbollah is not an independent Lebanese player in the full sense of the word. It is an armed structure closely linked to Iran, embedded in Tehran’s regional strategy, and used as a tool of pressure on Israel.
If the negotiation process depends on “silence” in Lebanon, then Iran gets the opportunity to manage this silence. Today — reduce the fire. Tomorrow — raise the temperature. The day after tomorrow — accuse Israel of disrupting agreements.
Thus, Israel’s northern front turns into a lever for negotiations on sanctions, uranium, frozen assets, and regional influence.
Why this directly concerns Israelis
For the residents of Israel, this story is not distant diplomacy. It is not about a protocol meeting in a beautiful Swiss hotel, but about the security issue of the country’s north.
If the international mechanism for Lebanon is built without Israel, it may create several problems.
Firstly, Israel risks finding itself in the position of a country that must take into account decisions made without its direct participation.
Secondly, Hezbollah and Iran can use each escalation as a way to pressure not only Israel but also the US.
Thirdly, the Lebanese Republic in such schemes often looks like a state participant, although on the ground a significant part of the power space is controlled by Hezbollah.
And finally, the main question arises: can the cessation of hostilities be sustainable if one of the key conflict participants is not named in the mechanism as a party whose interests and security must be directly considered?
The answer is obvious: such a construct may be convenient for negotiators, but it will not necessarily be safe for Israel.
What should alert Israel
Official statements from Qatar and Pakistan speak of diplomatic progress, committees, working groups, roadmaps, and technical negotiations. All this sounds like the language of international stabilization.
But behind this language lies a simple fact: the Lebanese front becomes part of the deal between the US and Iran.
And if Israel is not openly designated in this formula, then Jerusalem must have its own position: no agreements on Lebanon can substitute Israel’s right to protect its citizens.
NAnews — Israel News believes that the main question after the summit in Lucerne is not: “did the US and Iran agree?”
The main question is different: is a new mechanism being created in which Israel’s security is once again discussed without Israel itself?
Technical working groups, high-level committees, and diplomatic roadmaps may look solid. But in the Middle East, all this can collapse due to one drone, one rocket, one order from Tehran, or one decision by Hezbollah to test Israel’s north again.
That is why the outcome of the first stage of negotiations in Switzerland should be read not only as a diplomatic news. It should be read as a warning.
If Lebanon becomes part of the US-Iran deal, Israel must clearly state: the security of the north cannot be a subject of bargaining between Washington, Tehran, Doha, Islamabad, and Beirut without directly considering Israeli interests.
Otherwise, instead of ending the war, a new diplomatic construct may emerge in which Iran gains not peace, but another lever of crisis management.