The Charade of Peace: One Year After the “Israeli” Assault on Lebanon
By Mohamad Hammoud
How a US-Brokered Ceasefire Became a Temporary Pause, Not a Path to Peace
When the guns fell silent in November 2024, Washington celebrated what it called a “permanent cessation of hostilities” between Lebanon and “Israel.” The White House cast the ceasefire as a turning point, proof that American diplomacy could tame one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. But one year since “Israel” began its assault on Lebanon, the reality on the ground tells a different story. The truce has not delivered peace—it has merely postponed war.
As US special envoy Tom Barrack admitted, the supposed peace was always an “illusion”. His blunt assessments have stripped away the carefully crafted rhetoric, revealing a fragile agreement built on unbalanced power and Washington’s refusal to restrain its closest ally.
The Ceasefire’s Fragile Framework
The deal was ambitious. As reported by The Guardian, it required “Israel” to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon while Hezbollah moved its heavy weapons north of the Litani River, all within 60 days. The Lebanese Armed Forces [LAF] were tasked with securing the border and protecting the civilian population. For a moment, hope flickered that international diplomacy could finally bring stability to one of the Middle East’s most volatile regions.
That hope quickly faded. In September 2025, The National quoted Barrack saying, “There’s never been peace [in the Middle East]. There will probably never be peace because everybody’s fighting for legitimacy.” He dismissed symbolic gestures like UN recognition of Palestinian statehood as “useless,” underscoring how paper agreements cannot overcome entrenched power imbalances or erase decades of mistrust.
Washington’s Limitations
Barrack’s candor exposed the limits of US influence. In July 2025, Al Majalla reported him saying the United States “cannot compel “Israel” to do anything”—a striking admission given America’s billions in annual aid to its ally. Far from leveraging that support, Washington has deferred to “Israel’s” priorities, allowing unilateral action while maintaining the façade of compliance.
He went further in L’Orient Today, warning that “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “does not care about borders or red lines” and will act decisively whenever he perceives a threat. These warnings confirmed what many in Lebanon had already feared: the ceasefire was never intended to prioritize Lebanon; it was solely to protect “Israel”.
A Broken Agreement
According to the International Crisis Group, “Israel” has refused to relinquish five strategic hilltops along the border, effectively creating a new buffer zone. Al Jazeera reported that these positions prevent displaced Lebanese families from returning to their homes. At the same time, ReliefWeb documented more than 2,700 violations since the ceasefire—including airstrikes, shelling and airspace incursions reaching as far as Beirut’s suburbs.
Hezbollah, for its part, withdrew north of the Litani as required but rejected demands for complete disarmament while “Israel” continued occupying Lebanese land and violating sovereignty. The US and some regional allies have since pressed Beirut to disarm Hezbollah regardless of the consequences.
Barrack emphasized that Hezbollah has “zero incentive” to disarm as long as “Israel” continues its military operations against Lebanon and the surrounding region. He pointed out that “Israel’s” ongoing attacks on Lebanon and Syria strengthen Hezbollah’s justification for keeping its weapons. Barrack also noted that American military aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces [LAF] was never intended to defend against “Israel,” but rather to counter its own people, Hezbollah. He referred to Hezbollah and Iran as “our enemy”.
The Human Cost
Beyond military maneuvering, civilians have borne the brunt of this broken ceasefire. In one of the most devastating incidents, an airstrike on Bint Jbeil killed an entire Lebanese-American family. However, no US official condemned the attack. For many Lebanese, the silence underscored how external powers routinely prioritize politics over human life, reducing the suffering of ordinary people to collateral damage in a geopolitical struggle.
The “Head of the Snake”
Barrack’s phrase, “the head of the snake needs to be cut,” has sparked intense debate. To critics, it signaled tacit approval for unilateral “Israeli” strikes in the name of security. Whether rhetorical or not, the metaphor reinforced a dangerous precedent: aggressive action framed as preemptive necessity, further eroding what little balance the ceasefire provided and raising fears of renewed escalation.
Lessons for US Policy
The Lebanon ceasefire reveals the shortcomings of America’s quick-fix diplomacy. As the Middle East Institute noted in May 2025, deals that ignore core disputes and rely on fragile compromises rarely endure. Barrack himself acknowledged the contradiction: Washington wants to support “Israel” unconditionally yet also claims to uphold international agreements. The result is paralysis. Lebanon remains vulnerable, “Israel” acts without restraint and US credibility erodes further in the eyes of the region.
Conclusion
The November 2024 ceasefire was meant to mark a turning point. Instead, it has become a case study in failed diplomacy, where lofty promises mask the persistence of occupation, violations, and civilian suffering. Tom Barrack’s blunt commentary stripped away the rhetoric: peace in the Middle East is still an illusion, and in Lebanon, that illusion has come at a heavy price.
In the end, the ceasefire did not collapse because of Lebanon’s weakness or “Israel’s” strength alone—it failed because Washington refused to hold its ally accountable. Until that changes, any future truce will remain what Barrack himself called it: an illusion.
