Iran’s Supreme leader sets ‘Primary Conditions’ for ending war with US

In a historic geopolitical turn of events, representatives from Lebanon and Israel signed a milestone, United States-brokered framework agreement in Washington. The landmark accord aims to establish a structured pathway toward ending ongoing armed conflict, restoring territorial integrity, and enforcing a lasting cessation of hostilities across their shared southern border. While diplomats have hailed the deal as an unprecedented step forward for regional stability, it has simultaneously ignited fierce domestic political debates and public outcry over sovereignty, security, and national defense. Negotiated over several rounds of high-level talks overseen by American officials, the framework establishes a phased operational roadmap designed to reshape the security dynamic along the border. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are slated to progressively pull back from designated areas in southern Lebanon. Initial security sectors, known as pilot zones, will be created where control is formally transferred to standard state forces. Units from the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will assume exclusive security responsibilities in these cleared zones, asserting the government’s monopoly on weapons and defense operations. Under international oversight, the Lebanese government commits to consolidating armed power under state institutions and overseeing the eventual dismantling of non-state armed infrastructure, specifically targeting Hezbollah’s military apparatus. Despite the diplomatic milestone celebrated in Washington, the agreement has met intense polarization within Lebanon. Opponents and vocal social commentators accuse the state leadership of capitulating to foreign pressure, arguing that making Israeli withdrawal contingent upon the disarming of local resistance groups compromises national defense while Israeli troops remain stationed on Lebanese territory. Critics assert that such concessions disproportionately favor foreign security interests at the expense of displaced southern residents who have borne the brunt of military strikes and displacement. Conversely, supporters of the Lebanese central authority emphasize that the country cannot endure perpetual conflict and economic paralysis. Proponents argue that reclaiming exclusive state sovereignty over military decisions is essential for securing international financial assistance, starting the rebuilding of devastated infrastructure, and allowing hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians to safely return to their homes in the south. Beyond the immediate security perimeter, the framework signals a broader effort by international mediators to reconfigure security structures in the Levant. By tying economic revitalization and diplomatic normalization to strict military compliance, Western nations hope to dismantle non-state proxy networks and prevent wider regional war spillover. However, significant hurdles remain. The execution of the agreement depends heavily on whether the Lebanese military possesses sufficient operational capability and political backing to execute its mandate without sparking internal civil strife. Furthermore, continuous monitoring mechanisms led by international entities will be critical to verify that both parties adhere to the standstill terms and avoid accidental escalations during the delicate troop transition phases. As diplomatic delegations prepare for follow-up implementation rounds, the coming months will test whether this framework represents a genuine turning point toward lasting peace or merely a brief intermission in a long-standing regional feud.