The implementation of the fragile framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon has been put under serious question marks after an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically announced that Tel Aviv does not consider itself bound by any withdrawal commitments before Hezbollah's weapons are completely eliminated. Political uncertainty in the region is also being intensified by sharp criticism from the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, which, according to recent publications in the “Wall Street Journal“ (The Wall Street Journal) are deeply disappointed with the chaotic approach of the Donald Trump administration towards Iran.
Tel Aviv's Ultimatum: Disarmament or Eternal Israeli Presence
In a statement, initially quoted by the American publication Axios and retransmitted by a number of Middle Eastern media outlets, Netanyahu's advisor stressed that Israel has informed the White House that it will not withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon [SadaNews]. The main demand of the Israeli side remains the complete dismantling of Hezbollah's military infrastructure and the disarmament of the group [Al Jazeera].
The framework agreement, which was signed in Washington at the end of June, provided for a phased withdrawal of the Israeli army from the so-called “pilot zones“ and their occupation by the Lebanese state army [Reuters, Yeni Şafak]. The first phase began in late July, but the Lebanese government has already accused Israel of deliberately hindering the deployment of Lebanese armed forces through continued artillery fire in southern Lebanon [BSS, Times of Israel].
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz reiterated the cabinet’s hard line, saying the Israeli army would remain in Lebanon’s buffer zones indefinitely to protect northern communities from jihadist threats [The Media Line]. The next round of technical talks between the two sides, mediated by the US, is scheduled for August 4-6 in Rome, where an attempt will be made to save the peace process [BSS, Yeni Şafak].
„Wall Street Journal“: Disappointment in the Gulf with the US's hesitant position
In parallel with the Lebanese crisis, the major geopolitical tension remains the conflict with Iran. A new major report by The Wall Street Journal, published on August 2, 2026, reveals the deep divisions and frustrations among Washington’s Arab allies in the Middle East [WSJ 1, i24News].
According to the publication’s sources, the Persian Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, are putting serious pressure on President Donald Trump to refrain from new massive air strikes against Tehran and instead seek a diplomatic solution [WSJ 1]. Riyadh and Doha fear that in the event of an escalation, Iran would directly attack critical energy infrastructure in the Gulf, which would lead to an unprecedented economic catastrophe [WSJ 1].
Arab leaders are frustrated by the fact that the United States lacks a coherent long-term strategy [i24News]. Washington is constantly changing course – from signing temporary ceasefire memoranda (like the one in mid-June) to suddenly resuming bombing after Iran once again blocked shipping in the Strait of Hormuz [WSJ 2, WSJ 3]. This inconsistency leaves allied territories vulnerable to Iranian drone and missile strikes [i24News]. At the same time, domestic political pressure is growing in the United States, as polls show that a majority of Americans want an immediate end to the unpopular war in the Middle East [The Atlantic].
The Future of the Region: Between Diplomacy in Rome and Iranian Missiles
As of 8:11 p.m. on August 2, the situation in the Middle East remains in a state of unstable truce, threatened by failure on every front. As diplomats prepare for the Rome meeting on August 4, Hezbollah has already declared the framework agreement “null and void” and refused to tie Lebanon’s security to the handover of its weapons [Al Jazeera]. Without a clear and predictable commitment from the United States, the region teeters on the brink of a full-scale regional war that military experts do not see ending until at least 2027 [The Atlantic].