Israeli troops will not withdraw. They will remain indefinitely.
Washington and Tehran have struck a deal to end their military conflict, one that was meant to extend its promise of calm to Lebanon and its long-displaced residents. Yet within hours, Israel declared its forces would remain on Lebanese soil indefinitely, indifferent to what the two powers had agreed. The result is a peace that is partial at best — a formal architecture of resolution built over a conflict it cannot fully contain. For the people of Beirut quietly returning to emptied homes, the distance between a signed agreement and a livable reality has never felt wider.
- A US-Iran deal explicitly calling for an end to military operations in Lebanon raised hopes for a genuine turning point — only for Israel to immediately signal it would not be bound by its terms.
- Lebanese civilians, many displaced for weeks or months, have begun the fragile work of returning to Beirut neighborhoods hollowed out by conflict, testing whether safety is real or merely a pause.
- Israel's swift, unambiguous declaration — that its troops will remain in Lebanese territory on their own timeline — exposed the deal's central limitation: it resolves only part of the military equation.
- The gap between the agreement's promise and Israel's stated position leaves returning residents in profound ambiguity, calculating whether an incomplete peace is enough to justify coming home.
- Decisions that will determine whether those bets pay off are being made in distant capitals, by leaders with competing interests and no clear mechanism for bridging them.
Washington and Tehran have agreed to halt their military conflict, a deal that explicitly called for an end to operations in Lebanon — and that was supposed to bring relief to a country and a people worn down by displacement. Within hours of the announcement, however, Israel made its position plain: its forces would remain in Lebanon indefinitely, on its own terms, regardless of what the two powers had negotiated.
In Beirut, some residents have already begun returning to the neighborhoods they fled, moving back into homes emptied by conflict and testing whether the moment represents a genuine turning point. The question shadowing every return is whether it will last — or whether they are settling back into a temporary reprieve.
BBC international editor Jeremy Bowen has been assessing what the agreement actually delivers on the ground. The deal is real, a formal commitment between two significant powers. But its reach is bounded. Israel, which has conducted extensive operations in Lebanon in recent months, is not party to it and has said so explicitly. Its troops will not withdraw.
The result is a peculiar and painful gap: a deal that ends one conflict while leaving another unresolved, offering Lebanese civilians no clear answer to the only question that matters — whether they can live without fear. Israel's immediate announcement after the deal was finalized read as a deliberate signal that it operates by its own security logic, unconstrained by agreements made between others.
For now, those moving back into Beirut are making a calculated bet that an incomplete shift is still enough of a shift to make return possible. Whether that calculation holds depends on decisions being made far from the streets they are trying to reclaim.
Washington and Tehran have reached an agreement to halt their military conflict, a development that was supposed to bring relief to Lebanon and its displaced residents. The deal explicitly calls for an end to military operations in the country. But within hours of the announcement, Israel made clear it had other plans: its forces would remain in Lebanon indefinitely, regardless of what the Americans and Iranians had agreed to.
The contradiction sits at the heart of an uncertain moment for ordinary Lebanese. In Beirut, some residents have begun the difficult work of returning to homes they fled weeks or months earlier, hoping that the deal might signal a genuine turning point. They are moving back into neighborhoods that have been emptied by conflict, gathering what remains of their lives, testing whether it might finally be safe to stay. The question hanging over them is whether their return will last, or whether they are simply moving back into a temporary reprieve.
Jeremy Bowen, the BBC's international editor, has been examining what the agreement actually means on the ground. The deal itself is real enough—a formal commitment between two major powers to cease military operations. But its reach appears limited. Israel, which has conducted extensive military operations in Lebanon in recent months, is not bound by the US-Iran agreement. The country has made its position explicit: Israeli troops will not withdraw. They will remain in Lebanese territory as long as Israeli leadership deems necessary.
This creates a peculiar situation. The deal that was meant to bring stability to Lebanon addresses only part of the military picture. It stops one conflict but leaves another unresolved. For the Lebanese civilians attempting to rebuild, the distinction is academic. What matters is whether they can live without fear of military action. On that question, the agreement offers no clear answer.
The timing of Israel's announcement—coming as it did immediately after the US-Iran deal was finalized—suggests a deliberate signal. Israel is signaling that it operates on its own timeline, according to its own security calculations, and that international agreements between other parties do not constrain its actions. Whether this represents a negotiating position or a final stance remains unclear. What is clear is that Lebanese residents returning to Beirut are doing so in an environment of profound ambiguity about how long the current military situation will persist.
The coming weeks will test whether the US-Iran agreement holds and whether Israel's stated intention to maintain forces indefinitely translates into actual policy. For now, those moving back into their homes are making a calculated bet: that the deal, however incomplete, represents enough of a shift to make return possible. Whether that bet will pay off depends on decisions being made in capitals far from Beirut, by leaders with competing interests and no clear mechanism for resolving their differences.
Notable Quotes
Israel says its forces will remain in the country indefinitely despite the agreement— Israeli government statement
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
So the US and Iran made a deal to stop fighting, but Israel says it's staying in Lebanon anyway. How does that actually work?
It doesn't, really. The deal between Washington and Tehran is real—it explicitly ends military operations in Lebanon. But Israel isn't a party to that agreement. It's saying the deal doesn't apply to it, and its forces will stay as long as it decides they need to.
But doesn't that undermine the whole point of the deal?
For Lebanon, yes. The deal was supposed to bring stability, but it only addresses one side of the military presence there. Israel's operations continue on their own logic, their own timeline.
What about the people trying to go home?
They're caught in the middle. Some are moving back to Beirut, hoping the deal signals a real change. But they're doing it without knowing how long Israeli forces will actually stay or what that means for their safety.
Is Israel's position negotiable, or is this final?
That's the uncertainty everyone is watching. Israel made the announcement right after the deal was finalized, which suggests it's a deliberate signal. But whether it's a negotiating position or a hard line—nobody knows yet.
So what happens next?
The agreement holds or it doesn't. Israel's forces stay or they don't. And the Lebanese residents who've returned are essentially waiting to see which way the wind blows.