A sense of diplomatic stagnation is settling over several regional tracks, with no breakthrough in sight in the strained relationship between the United States and Iran. Both sides remain locked in a familiar cycle of escalation, containment, and reciprocal pressure.

The Lebanese–Israeli channel, which initially appeared to hold more promise after two rounds of direct discussions in Washington, has also stalled. Both sides remain entrenched in opposing conditions, leaving the process effectively frozen.

Against this backdrop, what some sources have described as a broader “freeze effect” has extended to a planned trilateral meeting in Baabda. The development intensified after Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri entered the exchange in response to President Joseph Aoun.

According to Nidaa Al-Watan, a trilateral phone call between Aoun, Berri, and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam ultimately led to the postponement of the meeting. Sources said the delay rested on two factors: an official justification citing Israeli escalation in southern Lebanon, and an unofficial reason linked to Berri’s reluctance to attend a meeting that could place him in a politically sensitive position before his Shiite political base.

Lebanon ties talks to ceasefire implementation

Amid this diplomatic paralysis, President Joseph Aoun has laid out Lebanon’s position, insisting that any direct negotiations are contingent on Israel’s full implementation of the ceasefire. He said Lebanon is waiting for what he described as Washington’s “diplomatic zero hour.”

Speaking on Wednesday to a delegation of economic bodies, Aoun said the Lebanese file is now on the desk of U.S. President Donald Trump, calling it “an opportunity we must seize to move our country toward safety and peace.”

“In every step I have taken regarding negotiations, I have coordinated and consulted with the Speaker of Parliament and the Prime Minister, contrary to what is being said in the media,” Aoun said.

Responding to criticism that Lebanon had, according to a U.S. statement issued after trilateral talks in Washington, accepted language granting Israel freedom to continue military actions, Aoun clarified that the wording in question appeared in a statement issued by the U.S. State Department. He added that the same formulation had been used in November 2024 and accepted by all parties at the time.

Political pushback from Ain al-Tineh

The clarification triggered an immediate response from Ain al-Tineh. Berri’s media office issued a statement describing Aoun’s remarks as “inaccurate, if not more,” including his references to the November 2024 agreement and the broader negotiation process.

The exchange coincided with Berri receiving a phone call from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, during which they discussed developments in Lebanon and the wider region.

Sources familiar with the negotiations expressed surprise at Berri’s reaction, telling Nidaa Al-Watan that those following the process know Aoun keeps Berri fully informed of all developments. The sources said Berri agrees to many major decisions and, in other instances, authorizes the president to act as he sees fit, rarely objecting. On that basis, they stressed that Aoun does not act unilaterally on major strategic matters such as negotiations.

The same sources said Aoun is driven by what they described as an urgent effort to “save Lebanon,” noting that when the November 27 ceasefire agreement was reached, he was army commander, not president. They also recalled that Berri led negotiations at the time on behalf of Hezbollah, and that the agreement—approved by the government of then-Prime Minister Najib Mikati—included a clause explicitly recognizing the right to self-defense.

They added that rising political pressure could lead to the postponement of Berri’s planned visit to Baabda, while Aoun continues contacts with U.S. officials and Lebanon’s ambassador in Washington in an effort to ease tensions and prevent further escalation.

Deepening political rift

Aoun’s remarks have further widened an already growing political rift. By publicly stating that he coordinates all steps with both Berri and the prime minister, he directly challenged narratives suggesting he was acting independently, particularly on sensitive negotiation files.

His comments also contradicted Berri’s repeated assertions that he opposes direct negotiations, a position political sources say has become increasingly difficult to sustain amid ongoing diplomatic activity.

The president also reiterated that criticism over Lebanon’s acceptance of the U.S. statement following Washington’s trilateral talks was misplaced. He stressed that the language in question was not new, but part of a framework already endorsed by all parties in November 2024. He emphasized again that the document was a statement, not a formal agreement, which can only be finalized once negotiations are completed.

The remarks were widely interpreted as confirming that Berri had participated in endorsing the earlier framework, and that Lebanon’s political leadership had collectively agreed to provisions that included contentious clauses related to operational flexibility during the ceasefire period.

Berri’s office responded firmly, rejecting Aoun’s account and reiterating that his statements regarding both the 2024 framework and the current negotiation process were “inaccurate, if not more.”

Mounting tensions and stalled talks

The exchange has underscored growing friction between Lebanon’s top political institutions, with Aoun’s remarks effectively casting Berri as a central actor in negotiation decisions, despite his public efforts to distance himself from that role.

As tensions escalated, the planned trilateral meeting in Baabda was effectively suspended. Berri had reportedly conditioned his participation on a full ceasefire, warning that continued Israeli escalation was undermining the atmosphere for negotiations.

The postponement followed a trilateral call between Aoun, Berri, and Salam, during which it was agreed to delay the meeting for two reasons: ongoing Israeli military escalation and Berri’s reluctance to attend amid concerns over domestic political repercussions.

Observers say the dispute reflects deeper sensitivities within Lebanon’s political system, particularly the fear that any negotiation process could be interpreted as a step toward normalization—an issue that remains highly controversial within Hezbollah’s political orbit.

Israeli warning adds pressure

Separately, Israeli intelligence assessments reportedly suggested that ongoing Lebanese–Israeli negotiations could place President Aoun’s life at risk. The warning is being taken seriously at the Baabda Palace, according to sources, though they stress it has not altered the president’s policy direction.

Those close to Aoun insist he remains determined to proceed. One visitor described him as “unwavering,” adding: “He is moving forward with his decisions. Nothing will make him back down—may God protect him.”

In a recent cabinet session, Aoun summarized his position in blunt terms: “I would rather save my country, even if some insult me or accuse me of betrayal, than watch it being destroyed while others applaud.”