Tel Aviv/Dubai - Israel's defence minister reaffirmed on Wednesday that Israeli forces will not pull back from southern Lebanon, a stance that highlights a major complication for early U.S.-Iran peace negotiations. The statement came as U.S. diplomacy in the region seeks to secure support for an initial agreement reached last week to end a war that disrupted the Middle East and reduced traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for about a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies.
Israel's position and the Lebanon front
Senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz, have repeatedly insisted that troops will remain in the southern Lebanese area they describe as a security zone intended to protect communities in northern Israel. Speaking at a conference in Tel Aviv, Katz said the Israel Defense Forces stand ready and that there will be no withdrawal. He added that, as of that moment, there was no American demand for Israel to leave Lebanon - a point he described as a political achievement.
The comments intersect with discussions in Washington in which a U.S.-backed proposal has been presented for Israeli forces to cede some territory they occupied during the war to the control of the Lebanese army. Israel has been engaged in combat with Hezbollah in Lebanon since early March, after the militant group carried out attacks in support of Iran. Tehran has made halting hostilities in Lebanon a central component of its negotiating position in talks with the United States.
Violence on the ground
On Wednesday, Lebanese security and medical sources reported that an Israeli drone strike on a vehicle in southern Lebanon killed at least two people. The Israeli military told Reuters it was checking the reports. Earlier in the day, the military said its air force had struck two armed Hezbollah fighters near an area under Israeli troop control. It was not immediately clear whether those accounts referred to the same incident.
U.S. diplomacy and regional skepticism
The preliminary agreement between Washington and Tehran has provoked skepticism across the Middle East, where several states suffered attacks they attribute to Iran during the war and view aspects of the package as overly generous. Critics have pointed to items such as a reported $300 billion fund and the easing of certain sanctions. In response, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio embarked on a regional tour aimed at persuading partners to accept the outlines of the accord. On Wednesday he held a working lunch with United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and other senior figures. Rubio's itinerary also includes visits to Kuwait and Bahrain, both of which host important U.S. military facilities and were struck by Iranian missiles during the conflict, producing civilian casualties and significant economic effects.
Disputed provisions: inspections and incentives
Several elements of the initial pact have attracted conflicting descriptions. One source of dispute centers on financial incentives to Iran, with reports citing a $300 billion fund. Another concerns what the accord says about oversight of Iran's nuclear activities. U.S. President Donald Trump framed the campaign he launched on February 28 as aimed at preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and he has characterized nuclear constraints as a primary objective. Iran, for its part, has repeatedly said it does not intend to pursue nuclear weapons.
On Wednesday Iran rejected assertions that it had agreed to unlimited nuclear inspections. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi wrote on X that no meeting took place in Switzerland with International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi, despite Grossi's request, and said there were presently no plans to grant access to facilities that had been attacked or to nuclear materials. Gharibabadi added that such matters would be addressed only as part of a final agreement and after the other side had taken practical steps to remove all sanctions.
President Trump has defended aspects of the accord domestically, saying that frozen funds would be used to buy medical supplies and food from the United States, a point Iran has disputed.
Strait of Hormuz and shipping arrangements
Shipping has resumed through the Strait of Hormuz, and benchmark oil prices fell as a result. However, the long-term governance and operation of the waterway remain under discussion among Iran, Oman and other Gulf states. The article reports that Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani visited Muscat for talks with Oman on initiating negotiations over the strait. Gulf states are said to favour no transit fees, while Iran could propose charges for environmental, navigation and security reasons, according to a diplomat briefed on the conversations.
President Trump said on Wednesday that Iran had informed the U.S. there would be no tolls. He posted on social media: "Iran has informed the U.S. that, despite troublemaking Fake News reporting to the contrary, there are 'NO TOLLS, NO INSURANCE COSTS, & NO OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND BEING SOUGHT OR RECEIVED BY IRAN ON SHIPS TRAVELING THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ.'"
Iran's priorities
Iran has emphasized that a ceasefire in Lebanon is as crucial as a ceasefire on Iranian soil. Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, speaker of Iran's parliament, said on Wednesday in Baku at a meeting of the Parliamentary Union of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation member states that for Tehran, ending hostilities in Lebanon is as important as ending the war in Iran.
Markets and operational implications
Resumption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz coincided with a drop in oil prices, a market reaction reflected in the article. The broader question of how the strait will be managed over time - whether transit fees or other charges will be introduced, or whether passage will remain free of such costs - remains unresolved and under negotiation among regional states and Iran.
What remains unsettled
The initial accord between the United States and Iran, while signed last week, contains elements that have generated divergent accounts and ongoing dispute. Financial arrangements for Iran, the precise terms of nuclear oversight and the status of Israeli military positions in southern Lebanon are among the clearest points of contention reported in this article. Those issues are actively being negotiated or contested by the parties and their regional counterparts.
As U.S. diplomacy continues in the region and contacts between Tehran and other parties proceed, the status of forces on the ground in Lebanon and the governance of critical maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz will remain focal points for both political and market observers.