15JUN

Israel refuses the deal's Lebanon clause

3 min read

11:40UTC

Israel's Katz said the IDF will stay in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza for an unlimited period; Ben-Gvir said the deal does not bind Israel, which never signed it.

← Back to Trump declares Iran war over Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Israel never signed the deal, so nothing in it can force the IDF out of Lebanon.

Israeli defence minister Israel Katz declared the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would remain in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza "for an unlimited period of time", speaking on 14 June 2026. ¹ National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said the US-Iran deal "does not bind us" and that Israel is "not party to this agreement." ² Both spoke on the day the deal was announced, placing Israel outside an agreement Washington had brokered without it.

Iran and Pakistan both insist the ceasefire covers Lebanon, and Iran's deputy foreign minister said the war ends "on all fronts, including Lebanon." ³ That clause rests on an IDF withdrawal Katz has just refused. The Lebanon faultline is not new: it broke the bilateral halt agreed on 9 June, which Israel confirmed excluded Lebanon from the start . Katz has moved the position from "no withdrawal" to "unlimited period" across three theatres, turning a negotiating stance into a standing veto over a deal he was never asked to sign.

Israeli strikes on Beirut forced the planned 14 June electronic signing to slip to an in-person ceremony on Friday 19 June in Europe. ⁴ Donald Trump, who had spent the war warning Tehran and had already rebuked Benjamin Netanyahu publicly over the 9 June Karun strike , turned the criticism on his ally again: he called Netanyahu "a very difficult guy" and said the Beirut strikes nearly derailed the deal. ⁵ Because Israel is not a signatory, the US-Iran text has no mechanism to compel it. Hezbollah's own ceasefire, tied to an IDF pullback from southern Lebanon, has no trigger while the army stays put.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Two of Israel's most senior ministers said on 14-15 June that the US-Iran deal does not bind Israel, and that Israeli forces will stay in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza indefinitely. This matters because Iran has insisted any real peace deal must include an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Israel says it never agreed to any such clause and is not a party to the deal. Imagine two countries negotiating a peace deal that would require a third country to do something; if that third country was never at the table and refuses to comply, the peace deal has a hole in it the size of Lebanon. Iranian and Pakistani officials say Lebanon is included; Israel says it is not. Trump publicly criticised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying he is 'a very difficult guy', and said Israeli strikes on Beirut almost derailed the deal entirely.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Israel's non-participation has a legal root and a political root.

On the legal side, Israel was not party to the US-Iran MOU negotiations. There is no mechanism in the draft text to bind a third state that signed nothing. Iran's demand that the ceasefire covers Lebanon is a political demand made outside the formal treaty structure; it cannot be enforced against Israel through the instrument that does not include Israel.

On the political side, Ben-Gvir and the Religious Zionist bloc have made IDF presence in Lebanon a coalition condition. Netanyahu's government falls if he agrees to withdrawal; his incentive to accept even a Trump-brokered compromise on Lebanon is structurally lower than his incentive to hold. Trump's rebuke over Beirut carries less weight than it did over Karun because Netanyahu absorbed the Karun rebuke without changing course.

Escalation

The Lebanon faultline represents the most concrete risk to the 19 June signing. Israeli strikes on Beirut forced the 14 June electronic signing to slip already. If strikes continue or intensify before 19 June, the ceremony slips again. If Iran concludes Israel will not withdraw from Lebanon under any US pressure Washington can bring to bear, Tehran's hardliners gain a legitimate veto argument that the deal does not deliver what Iran was promised.

What could happen next?

Risk
Iran's hardliner faction gains a concrete argument for deal rejection if IDF withdrawal from Lebanon cannot be secured; the Lebanon clause becomes the most likely single point of failure before 19 June.
Immediate · Assessed
Consequence
Ben-Gvir's public repudiation of the deal increases the probability that Israel launches further strikes on Lebanese targets before 19 June, compounding the signing delay risk.
Short term · Reported
Precedent
A US-Iran deal that excludes Israel from its scope creates a template for future Middle East agreements in which Israel operates as a de facto veto actor outside any formal treaty structure.
Long term · Suggested

Source Landscape

This story draws on mixed-leaning sources from United States and Israel

United States

Israel

LeftRight

Primary parallel: The 1993 Oslo Accords were signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation while Yitzhak Rabin's domestic opponents, including future Prime Minister Netanyahu, publicly declared the deal did not bind them. Oslo held formally for seven years despite domestic repudiation by parties who later entered government. The structural mechanism is the same: a bilateral US-brokered deal announced over the explicit objection of a third party with military facts on the ground.

Counter-parallel: The 1978 Camp David Accords succeeded precisely because Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem Begin both had unified domestic authority behind their negotiating positions. When one party's domestic coalition publicly repudiates the deal, the Camp David model fails and the Oslo model (slow erosion) becomes the more likely precedent.

Consensus view: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Michael Makovsky and Brookings Institution's Natan Sachs both assess that Israel's Lebanon position constitutes a structural veto on the US-Iran deal, not a negotiating posture.

Iran has publicly made IDF withdrawal from Lebanon a condition of any final agreement. Katz's 'unlimited period' declaration removes the ambiguity that allowed the 9 June bilateral halt to hold ; without a withdrawal timeline, Iran has no path to claiming the Lebanon clause is satisfied.

Counter-view: The Begin-Sadat Center's Efraim Inbar argues that Israel's posture may be deliberate ambiguity to extract concessions from Washington rather than a genuine deal-breaker. Trump's rebuke of Netanyahu over the Beirut strikes, calling him 'a very difficult guy', signals US displeasure strong enough to produce Israeli flexibility in private, even if Ben-Gvir and Katz hold maximalist public positions.

Key tension: Whether the US-Israel relationship carries enough residual leverage for Trump to extract a Lebanese withdrawal timeline from Netanyahu before the 19 June Switzerland ceremony, given that Netanyahu survived a Trump rebuke over the Karun strike and then authorised further Beirut strikes anyway.

First Reported In

Update #128 · Trump declares Iran war over

RFE/RL· 15 Jun 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Iran and Israel halt, minus Lebanon

The 9 June bilateral halt explicitly excluded Lebanon; Katz's unlimited-period declaration on 14 June converts that carve-out into a permanent structural veto.

Occurred 9 Jun 2026

Read story →

This Event

Israel refuses the deal's Lebanon clause

The ceasefire Iran says covers Lebanon depends on an IDF withdrawal Israel has now ruled out, and the US-Iran channel has no instrument to bind a party that never signed.

Led to

Hezbollah fired on Israel hours after signing

Katz's unlimited-stay ruling set the conditions Araghchi invoked as a violation trigger; Hezbollah fire on 15-16 June tested the clause immediately.

Occurred 15 Jun 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

G7 Leaders (ex-US)

Kananaskis ended without a joint communique for the first time in the body's history; Macron credited G7 pressure with speeding the ceasefire while Trump publicly denied the summit played any role. The split between US and European G7 partners over what the memorandum means for sanctions relief was the direct cause of the text failure.

Protection-and-Indemnity insurers

London-based P&I mutual clubs declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings while the IRGC Strait Authority remained operational, making the passage commercially impassable regardless of the memorandum's terms. Shipping operators said they would wait weeks for on-water conditions to change before routing tankers through.

IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority

P&I mutual insurers declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings on 15-16 June while the IRGC's Strait Authority remained in operation, reducing actual transits to two vessels against a pre-war daily rate of 94. The corps' revenue-generating toll mechanism, created 5 May and collecting $1.5-2 million per VLCC in crypto, has not been stood down and cannot be dissolved by Ghalibaf's signature.

Israeli Cabinet

Netanyahu admitted he had not seen the memorandum's text but confirmed IDF forces would stay in southern Lebanon; Finance Minister Smotrich called for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone and National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said the agreement 'does not bind us in any way'. Israel signed nothing in Islamabad and is the central unresolved variable in the Lebanon clause.

Iranian Majlis hardliners

Around 60 MPs signed a letter demanding Ghalibaf explain the memorandum; Paydari faction MP Sabeti said the deal violates the Supreme Leader's red lines, and MP Aboutorabi argued the document carries binding obligations 'that cannot be resolved by simply changing the name'. President Pezeshkian defended the negotiators against accusations of betrayal, confirming the fracture inside Iran's political class.

US Vice President JD Vance

Vance signed on 15 June and said the memorandum was 'not conditioned on Israel withdrawing from Lebanon' while also saying it 'envisioned a ceasefire that covers both Iran and Lebanon'. The two formulations are incompatible and hand Iran's foreign minister a ready-made violation claim before Geneva.