CIS LEBANON SECURITY INDEX – June 26 2026

Friday, June 26, 2026

🟠 HISTORIC | WAR DAY 117 | ISRAEL-LEBANON FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT SIGNED IN WASHINGTON | PARTIAL IDF WITHDRAWAL FROM TWO BUFFER ZONE AREAS | WITHDRAWAL TIED TO HEZBOLLAH DISARMAMENT, NOT FIXED TIMETABLE | HEZBOLLAH CALLS DEAL “NULL AND VOID” — DEMANDS UNCONDITIONAL ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL | NABATIEH STRUCK DURING ASHURA | MANSOURI EVACUATION ORDER — FIRST SINCE CEASEFIRE | DOES NOT MANDATE FULL ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL FROM 20% OF LEBANON

INDEX LEVEL: 🟠 HIGH — HISTORIC BUT CONTESTED OVERALL INDEX: 63/100 TREND: ↔️ SIGNIFICANT DIPLOMATIC MILESTONE, IMMEDIATELY CONTESTED ON THE GROUND — Israel and Lebanon signed a formal trilateral framework agreement at the US State Department on Friday June 26, the most significant written document between the two governments since 1983; the deal commits to a “sequenced process” for the Lebanese army to restore “effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups” — explicit reference to Hezbollah; Israel will begin a PARTIAL withdrawal from two specific areas inside its six-mile buffer zone, replaced by Lebanese forces; HOWEVER, the deal does NOT mandate full Israeli withdrawal from the roughly one-fifth of Lebanese territory it occupies, and ties any further withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament rather than a fixed timetable; Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the deal hours before signing, calling it “null and void” and demanding Israel withdraw “unconditionally”; meanwhile, Israeli strikes continued on Ashura — hitting Nabatieh al-Fawqa and Mayfadoun (2 killed), and Israel issued its first forced displacement order (Mansouri) since the ceasefire began.

⛔ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — FRIDAY JUNE 26, 2026 (WAR DAY 117)

THE HISTORIC SIGNING — WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SIGNED

After four days of marathon talks at the US State Department, Israel and Lebanon signed a formal trilateral framework agreement on Friday, witnessed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Signatories: Israel’s Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter, Lebanon’s Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh, and State Department Counsellor Daniel Holler.

This is being described by multiple outlets as a landmark moment — the most substantive written framework between the two governments since the failed May 17 Agreement of 1983, and the first formal Israel-Lebanon document of the current war.

What the text actually says: The State Department released the agreement text, which describes a “sequenced process” that will see the Lebanese army restore “effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups” — a clear and direct reference to Hezbollah.

What it means operationally, per a source familiar with the matter (Times of Israel):

• The IDF will begin a partial withdrawal from southern Lebanon
• Israeli forces will pull out of two specific areas located inside the six-mile-long buffer zone the IDF established in southern Lebanon
• Israeli troops will be replaced by members of the Lebanese forces (army)
• These two areas have already been cleared by the IDF of Hezbollah infrastructure — in some cases, this involved Israel razing entire Lebanese border villages, which the IDF argued were being used by Hezbollah to plan and carry out attacks

What it does NOT do:

• The deal does not mandate Israeli withdrawal from the roughly one-fifth (20%) of Lebanese territory it currently occupies.
• Israel insisted on maintaining the original borders of the broader buffer zone, arguing this territory is needed to keep northern Israeli border towns outside the range of Hezbollah missiles.
• There is no fixed timetable for any further withdrawal — it is explicitly tied to the pace and verification of Hezbollah’s disarmament, a process entirely outside Israel’s direct control and one Hezbollah has shown no willingness to begin.

NETANYAHU’S VIDEO STATEMENT — THE ISRAELI READING OF THE DEAL

Netanyahu issued a video statement shortly after the agreement was announced, framing it as a clear strategic win for Israel:

“We will maintain [the buffer zone] until Hezbollah disarms and as long as there is a threat to the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said.

He then directly addressed Iran: “This is also a major blow to Iran. Iran is trying to coax us to withdraw from southern Lebanon by force. And in essence, Israel, Lebanon and the United States are telling Iran — it is none of your business. You have no role in Lebanon. Neither you, nor Hezbollah nor any terrorist organization.”

Netanyahu added: “We are also allowing the Lebanese army to start preparing to seize territory.”

Al Jazeera’s analysis described this as “a partial, momentary win for Netanyahu, who faced intense domestic criticism after the US and Iran sidelined Israel to sign the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which mandates an end to hostilities in Lebanon as well.” With this new agreement, Israel has effectively secured a separate, Israel-favorable framework that runs in parallel to — and in key respects supersedes in practical terms — the broader US-Iran MOU’s Lebanon provisions.

HEZBOLLAH’S REJECTION — “NULL AND VOID”

In a televised address hours before the signing, on the Muslim holy day of Ashura, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem demanded that Israel pull its troops completely out of Lebanon “unconditionally.”

Following the signing, Hezbollah formally called the deal “null and void,” explicitly rejecting any framework that does not begin with full and unconditional Israeli withdrawal. Hezbollah has accepted “no normalisation” and “no gains for Israel” as red lines, according to Al Jazeera’s reporting on Qassem’s position.

Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc reiterated its refusal to negotiate directly with Israel, and specifically demanded that Lebanese authorities not grant Israel “experimental areas” north of the Litani River — a reference to ongoing discussions about Israeli access to areas it has historically been unable to occupy directly.

Former Lebanese diplomat Tracy Chamoun, speaking to Al Jazeera, offered a blunt assessment of the negotiating dynamic: “I think the meeting [in Washington] is not going very well because the Lebanese delegation is not able to extract any promise or any commitments from Israel on those two points” — referring to a comprehensive ceasefire commitment and a full withdrawal commitment.

Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr characterized Israel’s negotiating posture this way: Israel appears to be conditioning any withdrawal in Lebanon on “Hezbollah’s full disarmament,” while simultaneously pressing for Lebanon’s own army to dismantle Hezbollah infrastructure in areas north of the Litani River — areas Israel itself has been unable to occupy. Khodr cited security sources saying Israel believes its continuing attacks on frontline villages gives it more leverage with Lebanon’s government.

THE GROUND SITUATION — STRIKES CONTINUED THROUGH ASHURA, EVEN AS THE DEAL WAS BEING SIGNED

Despite the historic signing, Israeli attacks in Lebanon did not stop on Friday.

On Friday morning, an Israeli air raid hit the town of Nabatieh al-Fawqa, while two people were reported killed by an earlier Israeli raid on the town of Mayfadoun.

Mansouri evacuation order — first since the ceasefire: Israeli forces dropped leaflets over the southern town of Mansouri, demanding residents leave, according to Lebanese state media — the first such forced displacement order issued since the latest Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire began. An Israeli military spokesperson characterized the order as a “reminder” to the civilian population that “the area is within the security zone in which IDF soldiers operate,” urging civilians “not to be in the area so they won’t be harmed.”

Lebanese officials say Israeli troops are actively enforcing the buffer zone’s northern boundary by firing at anyone approaching it — including both civilians and Lebanese soldiers. This is an extremely important operational detail: the buffer zone is not merely a notional boundary but an actively enforced exclusion zone where approach by either civilians or Lebanon’s own military can draw fire.

While Israeli attacks in Lebanon have declined in frequency since the renewed ceasefire began last week, they have not stopped — a pattern entirely consistent with everything CIS has documented since the MOU’s June 17 signing.

THE WITHDRAWAL DEBATE — WHAT “PARTIAL” ACTUALLY MEANS

A source familiar with the matter told the Times of Israel that Israel, in this week’s talks, insisted on maintaining the original borders of the buffer zone, arguing that amount of territory is needed inside Lebanon to ensure northern Israeli border towns aren’t within range of Hezbollah missiles.

It appears unlikely that such a limited withdrawal will satisfy Iran or its Hezbollah proxy, who argue Israel is violating the memorandum of understanding signed the prior week, which required a permanent end to military operations in Lebanon. Israel maintains it is not a party to that agreement and is refusing to dismantle its south Lebanon buffer zone wholesale.

Consequently, Iran has apparently refrained from reining in Hezbollah, which has continued to target IDF troops in southern Lebanon — harming what has been described as an extremely porous ceasefire that has also repeatedly risked collapsing the broader MOU between the US and Iran.

📅 KEY TIMELINE — JUNE 21–26

🗺️ JUNE 26 GOVERNORATE-BY-GOVERNORATE ASSESSMENT

🚗 JUNE 26 TRAVEL STATUS

📊 JUNE 26 STATISTICS — WAR DAY 117

🔑 KEY STATEMENTS — JUNE 26, 2026

🛡️ CIS SECURITY — JUNE 26 ASSESSMENT & GUIDANCE

Trusted Security Excellence Since 1990 | “Because Your Safety Isn’t Optional”

CIS POSTURE: LEVEL 4 — HIGH ALERT (Maintained)

CIS maintains Level 4 today despite the historic nature of the signing. This is a genuinely significant diplomatic milestone — the first formal Israel-Lebanon document since 1983 — but its practical, on-the-ground impact for south Lebanon residents and CIS clients remains extremely limited in the near term, for several specific reasons detailed below.

WHY THE SIGNING DOES NOT YET CHANGE CIS’S OPERATIONAL POSTURE

1. The withdrawal is partial, not comprehensive. Only two specific areas inside the six-mile buffer zone are affected. Israel continues to occupy roughly one-fifth of Lebanese territory, and has explicitly stated it will maintain this presence indefinitely, tied to a condition (Hezbollah disarmament) it alone will judge as met.
2. There is no fixed timetable. Without a hard deadline, “withdrawal tied to disarmament” can mean anything from weeks to years, depending entirely on how the disarmament process unfolds — a process Hezbollah has explicitly rejected as a precondition.
3. Hezbollah was not a party to this agreement and has formally rejected it. As with every prior framework since April, any agreement that excludes the armed actor actually conducting attacks against Israeli forces faces a fundamental enforceability problem. Hezbollah’s “null and void” declaration signals it does not consider itself bound in any way.
4. Strikes continued on the very day of signing. Nabatieh al-Fawqa was struck. Two people were killed in Mayfadoun. A new evacuation order was issued for Mansouri — the first since the ceasefire began. This is not the pattern of a war that has functionally ended; it is the pattern of a war whose political framework has shifted while its military reality continues largely unchanged.
5. The buffer zone boundary is being actively enforced with live fire against civilians and Lebanese soldiers. This is an extremely serious and specific danger that predates and continues independent of today’s signing.

WHAT WOULD JUSTIFY A POSTURE REDUCTION

CIS will consider reducing posture further once we observe:

• ✅ Independent verification that Lebanese forces have actually replaced IDF troops in the two named withdrawal areas
• ✅ A sustained reduction (not just decline, but cessation) in new evacuation/displacement orders
• ✅ Some indication that Hezbollah, despite its rejection of the framework, is not actively undermining the two specific withdrawal areas
• ✅ No further Mansouri-style evacuation orders, signaling the buffer zone enforcement approach is genuinely de-escalating rather than continuing under a new diplomatic veneer

ZONE-BY-ZONE GUIDANCE — JUNE 26

MANSOURI: Active evacuation order. If you are present, leave immediately following the evacuation guidance and head away from the designated security zone.

NABATIEH AL-FAWQA, MAYFADOUN: Both struck today. Avoid.

BUFFER ZONE NORTHERN BOUNDARY (general): Do not approach under any circumstances. Israeli forces are firing at anyone who approaches, including civilians and Lebanese Army personnel. This is one of the most acute and specific dangers currently facing anyone in south Lebanon.

THE TWO NAMED WITHDRAWAL AREAS: Do not assume these are safe yet, even though they are slated for IDF-to-Lebanese-Army handover. CIS has not yet confirmed independently that this handover has occurred or what security conditions exist during any transition period.

REST OF SOUTH LEBANON: Continue general caution consistent with the past several weeks. The framework signing is a political development, not yet a verified military one.

BEIRUT, MOUNT LEBANON, NORTH LEBANON, AKKAR: Calm, normal operations. Monitor Dahiyeh for any protest-related activity following Hezbollah’s rejection of the deal.

WHAT CIS IS WATCHING — THE WEEK AHEAD

1. Does the IDF-to-Lebanese-Army handover in the two named areas actually occur, and on what timeline? This is the single most concrete, verifiable test of whether today’s signing produces real change.
2. How does Hezbollah respond operationally, not just rhetorically, to being excluded from and rejecting this framework? Does Hezbollah escalate attacks on IDF positions in protest, or does it adopt a more measured posture given Iran’s broader interest in preserving the US-Iran MOU?
3. Does Israel issue further Mansouri-style evacuation orders, or was this an isolated incident? A pattern of renewed evacuation orders would strongly suggest the underlying military posture has not meaningfully shifted despite the diplomatic signing.
4. Does Iran treat this framework as compliant with, or in violation of, the Islamabad MOU it signed with the US? Given Iran’s repeated threats to link Hormuz and broader nuclear negotiations to Lebanon’s situation, its formal response to this agreement will be consequential for the wider regional picture.
5. What is the reaction in south Lebanon itself, particularly from displaced families who may now face conflicting signals — a historic peace framework on one hand, and a fresh evacuation order on the other?

📞 EMERGENCY CONTACTS — JUNE 26, 2026

CIS Security 24/7: +961-3-539900 | info@cissecurity.net | www.cissecurity.net Lebanese Army South Lebanon Liaison: +961-8-802-510 US Embassy Emergency: +1-202-501-4444 | BeirutACS@state.gov Lebanese Red Cross: 1760 Civil Defence: 125 ISF: 112 National Mental Health Lifeline: 1564 (24/7 — confidential)

⚠️ FINAL ASSESSMENT — WAR DAY 117, JUNE 26, 2026

A historic signature. A familiar contradiction. A new evacuation order on the same day.

Today, Israel and Lebanon signed their most substantial formal agreement since 1983 — a genuine landmark, witnessed by the US Secretary of State, that commits to a “sequenced process” toward restoring Lebanese sovereign authority across the country. This deserves to be recognized as real diplomatic progress, achieved after four days of demanding negotiations in Washington.

But the agreement’s own structure reveals the unresolved core of this entire 117-day war: it does not mandate Israel’s withdrawal from the fifth of Lebanese territory it occupies, and instead ties any further withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament — a condition Hezbollah formally and immediately rejected, hours before the ink was dry, calling the whole framework “null and void.”

And on the ground, the contradiction played out in real time. As diplomats signed documents in Washington, Israeli aircraft struck Nabatieh al-Fawqa and Mayfadoun, killing two people, and Israeli forces issued an evacuation order for Mansouri — the first since the ceasefire began. Lebanese soldiers and civilians who approach the buffer zone’s northern boundary continue to be fired upon.

Netanyahu called this agreement a “major blow to Iran” and a step toward the Lebanese army “preparing to seize territory.” Hezbollah called it meaningless without unconditional withdrawal. Both statements can be true at once — which is precisely why CIS does not yet consider this signing a turning point for south Lebanon’s security situation, however significant it may prove to be for the broader diplomatic trajectory of this war.

CIS maintains Level 4 — High Alert — and will be watching closely for whether the next days bring verified, concrete change on the ground, or simply another chapter in the now-familiar pattern of historic announcements followed by continued strikes.

+961-3-539900 | info@cissecurity.net | cissecurity.net CIS Security — Because Your Safety Isn’t Optional — Est. 1990

CIS Lebanon Security Index™ | Friday, June 26, 2026 | WAR DAY 117 Sources: Al Jazeera “Israel-Lebanon deal ties ceasefire to Hezbollah disarmament: Will it work?” (June 26-27, 2026 — full agreement text “sequenced process” “effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory pending verified disarmament of non-state armed groups”; deal does not mandate Israeli withdrawal from fifth of Lebanese land; Netanyahu video statement full quotes “major blow to Iran” “none of your business” “preparing to seize territory”; Hezbollah chief calls deal “null and void”; Ashura banner photo Mohamed Azakir Reuters; Hezbollah supporters block old airport road burning tyres protest photo Ibrahim Amro AFP; signing photo Ken Cedeno Reuters Rubio Holler Leiter Hamadeh); Times of Israel “June 26: Israeli envoy says IDF withdrawal not based on fixed timetable, but Hezbollah disarmament” (June 26, 2026 — framework agreement partial withdrawal two areas inside six-mile buffer zone; Lebanese forces replacement; areas cleared Hezbollah infrastructure villages razed; fourth day fifth round talks; source familiar matter; Israel insisted maintain original buffer zone borders; unlikely satisfy Iran Hezbollah; Israel not party to MOU refusing dismantle buffer zone; Iran refrained reining in Hezbollah; signing photo Kevin Wolf AP State Department Friday); Al Jazeera “Hezbollah demands Israel leave Lebanon ‘unconditionally’ amid talks in US” (June 26, 2026 — Qassem Ashura televised address demand unconditional withdrawal; “no normalisation” “no gains for Israel”; Netanyahu “we will remain in Lebanon Syria and Gaza as long as required”; Nabatieh al-Fawqa air raid; Mayfadoun 2 killed; Mansouri evacuation leaflets first since ceasefire; Israeli military spokesperson “reminder” quote; Israeli troops enforcing buffer zone boundary firing anyone approaching civilians and soldiers; Zeina Khodr analysis Hezbollah full disarmament conditioning; Tracy Chamoun “meeting not going very well” quote; Hezbollah parliamentary bloc refusal negotiate directly demand no experimental areas north Litani); Wikipedia “2026 Lebanon war” (updated June 26, 2026 — timeline June 7 Beirut strike Iran missiles; June 15 Pakistan ceasefire all operations Lebanon Israel keep forces; June 19 Trump truce Ali al-Taher Hezbollah attack; June 20 Iran Hormuz closure; June 21 Netanyahu Katz hold fire Ali al-Taher exception; June 26 Rubio framework deal announcement; June 21 joint mechanism consultation US Iran Pakistan); Wikipedia “2026 Israel-Lebanon ceasefire” (April 16 original ceasefire context; historical pattern repeated violations); NPR “Hezbollah rejects ceasefire deal agreed on by Israel and Lebanon” (June 4, 2026, referenced — historical pattern Hezbollah “surrender defeat” rejection precedent; Qaani Israel withdraw pre-war positions first step). All Lebanon casualty figures from Lebanese Ministry of Public Health and Al Jazeera reporting. All diplomatic statements from named officials or sourced reporting. Index compiled: Friday, June 26, 2026 — Beirut time.