“A glimmer of hope that maybe the future will be different.” Jonathan Conricus used those words for the Israel-Lebanon agreement in an interview with The Media Line, published June 28. He called the Lebanon track “the big news of the weekend.”
Conricus is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former international spokesman for the IDF. His hope comes after almost three years of near-constant war for Israel, and it came wrapped in a wider tour of the region. The interview moved from attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and a threat from President Trump to “complete the job” to the Iran memorandum, then circled back to Lebanon. Conricus reads the region as a string of separate collisions, not one crisis.
What the framework says
Lebanon and Israel announced a framework agreement on June 26. The Associated Press described it as an Israeli withdrawal plan in exchange for Hezbollah’s disarmament, with possible steps toward peace between two countries that technically remain at war. Ynetnews reported that the first two pilot areas lie in the Nabatieh region, near Frun and Zawtar al-Sharqiyah, and that Israel needs U.S. Central Command approval before handing them over.
Israel keeps most of its security zone until Hezbollah is disarmed. Netanyahu put it this way: “Israel remains in the yellow zone, the security zone that protects us, and that is a huge achievement.”
Conricus described the same arrangement from the Israeli side. Troops stay in southern Lebanon until the area is fit for withdrawal. Then the Lebanese Armed Forces step into selected areas just beyond the “yellow line,” take responsibility and dismantle what is left of Hezbollah’s capabilities. He called it a “pilot program” that could grow if it works. He was blunt about the gamble: if there is a chance of peace between two sovereign states, “then I think it’s definitely worth taking calculated risks in order to do so.”
Who opposes it
Conricus said it is “very telling to see” who backs a peace deal between sovereign states and who fights it. In his view, anyone committed to sovereignty and peace should welcome a roadmap, not resist it because it weakens “Iran and Hezbollah.” The AP noted that Hezbollah has strongly opposed direct Lebanon-Israel talks.
At home, Itamar Ben-Gvir, the National Security Minister, criticized the process. Conricus waved him off as “an outlier” with no authority on the issue, and said his stance reflects politics “in election season.”
Conricus argued that Israel has changed the picture in Lebanon. Before October 7, he said, Hezbollah held “more than 130,000 rockets.” Then came the “beeper attack,” the killing of Hassan Nasrallah and other senior commanders, and the destruction of the Radwan unit. “We have now kind of turned the tables in Lebanon,” he said. The opening could matter for Saudi Arabia too, though he expects Riyadh to wait until after Israeli elections because of the “political baggage and weight” attached to Netanyahu.
Iran memorandum draws his sharpest criticism
On Iran he was far less hopeful. The region is living in “kind of a twilight zone,” he said. The memorandum “doesn’t address their nuclear weapons aspirations. It doesn’t address their ballistic missiles.” He called it “a very frustrating document” and “very generous,” giving Tehran sanctions relief, access to the dollar system and permission to sell oil “without really getting much in return.”
Sources
- Why is Jonathan Conricus chiding Netanyahu, blaming Egypt, and hailing Lebanon deal? (The Media Line, Felice Friedson; also published by The Jerusalem Post)
- Israel to Hand South Lebanon Zones to Lebanese Army Under US-Backed Deal (Ynetnews)
- Lebanon and Israel Move Toward Implementing Withdrawal Agreement, US Officials Say (Associated Press, via Military.com)
