The return of Lebanon’s ambassador to Washington, Michel Issa, to Beirut late on Saturday is being closely watched in political circles, as it may signal how far the United States is prepared to respond to President Joseph Aoun’s push to extend the fragile ceasefire brokered under President Donald Trump. The Lebanese president is seeking to consolidate and stabilize the truce, warning that without reinforcement it could remain vulnerable amid ongoing threats exchanged between Israel and Hezbollah, which has said it is prepared to respond militarily to any violations.

The development comes against a backdrop of rising political and security tensions in southern Lebanon, where displaced residents attempting to visit their villages have been urged by Hezbollah deputy political council chief and former minister Mahmoud Qamati to leave immediately and return to areas of displacement, underscoring fears of renewed escalation.

Diplomatic push to extend ceasefire

The exchange of threats between Israel and Hezbollah has heightened concern among residents of the south, as well as within the presidency. President Aoun, however, is said to remain cautiously confident following what aides describe as a positive exchange with Trump, and is banking on U.S. backing for a ceasefire extension ahead of planned direct negotiations with Israel. According to a Lebanese minister quoted by Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, Beirut hopes the United States will prevent southern Lebanon from slipping back into a cycle of conflict that could derail diplomatic preparations.

Those preparations are expected to culminate in talks hosted in Washington, provided conditions stabilize. Lebanese officials are seeking a framework that would allow negotiations to proceed without military escalation, with the aim of finalizing a Lebanese position paper to be presented in a calmer environment.

A ministerial source said the issue of extending the ceasefire featured prominently in a recent meeting between President Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. The source said Aoun was reassured by Trump’s intervention with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which reportedly secured a 10-day extension of the ceasefire without prior approval from Israel’s security cabinet.

Domestic political backlash

The same source noted that Aoun and Salam also discussed political reactions to the president’s public address at the start of the ceasefire. Both expressed surprise at what they described as accusations of betrayal and threats directed at Aoun, largely from Hezbollah figures. The source said critics had “misjudged intentions by issuing premature political verdicts without considering the broader roadmap outlined by the president ahead of negotiations.”

Aoun’s remarks, in which he pledged readiness “to go wherever necessary to liberate his country and secure its people’s future,” were also at the center of internal debate. According to the source, Hezbollah was quick to interpret these statements as implying direct engagement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, prompting what officials in Beirut see as an unnecessary political escalation.

The source stressed that such a meeting is not currently envisaged. Any future encounter between Lebanese and Israeli leaders, they said, would only occur at the final stage of a comprehensive agreement and could potentially be held under U.S. auspices, with Trump acting as guarantor. Washington, they added, has shown understanding of Lebanon’s position, and any eventual summit would depend on a fully structured deal.

Debate over negotiations and sovereignty

The Lebanese presidency, according to the source, maintains that negotiations are aimed at ending Israeli military operations, securing withdrawal from southern Lebanese territory, and enabling the Lebanese Armed Forces to deploy up to the internationally recognized border.

The official also questioned Hezbollah’s opposition to the process, asking whether the group rejects the president’s stated principles or offers an alternative to negotiations after years of military confrontation that, he said, brought severe human and material costs to Lebanon. He further asked on what basis Hezbollah had agreed to the ceasefire, suggesting the group may still view the agreement as part of an ongoing military equation.

While acknowledging that Hezbollah had previously framed its involvement in regional conflicts as part of its deterrence strategy, the source argued that Lebanon could no longer afford to be drawn into wider regional confrontations.

Firm presidential stance

The source emphasized that Lebanon’s negotiating principles would not be compromised. He said there is “no question of abandoning national constants,” and argued that Lebanon should be given the opportunity to recover its rights through diplomacy rather than renewed conflict.

At the same time, he criticized what he described as a campaign of intimidation against President Aoun led by Hezbollah figures aligned with the party’s hardline wing. According to the source, these attacks intensified after Aoun declared that “we negotiate on our own behalf and decide for ourselves what we want, and there is no longer room for the wars of others on our soil.”

That statement, he said, was followed by an escalation in political and media pressure, including accusations that Lebanon was distancing itself from Iran. He claimed that a regional intermediary had informed the U.S. negotiating delegation that Beirut rejected the principle of “unity of arenas” with Iran, triggering a coordinated media and political response involving Hezbollah and its affiliated online networks.