Rome produced no breakthrough. The latest round of talks between Lebanon and Israel in the Italian capital ended without decisive results, with the negotiating process moving at an exceptionally slow pace. Major differences in priorities remain between both sides, while Washington has so far failed to exert meaningful pressure on Israel to respect its commitments under the framework agreement. The tense regional environment, both diplomatically and militarily, is hardly helping turn the negotiations into practical results.

The slow pace of the talks is now prompting quiet doubts in diplomatic circles over the purpose of maintaining the process while Israel is still destroying villages in southern Lebanon and violating the ceasefire, which UNIFIL has described as fragile.

Hezbollah, which is not itself a party to the talks, has kept up its opposition throughout. Secretary-General Naim Qassem denounced the round as bringing Lebanon "nothing but shame, humiliation, and successive compromises." He went further in a televised address, accusing Aoun of failing to act as a neutral arbiter and instead becoming a divisive figure incompatible with Lebanon's national interest. The criticism underscores the domestic tightrope Aoun is walking: pursuing a process Hezbollah views as illegitimate while lacking the leverage to disarm the group himself, a central and unresolved condition of the framework agreement he is negotiating under.

President Joseph Aoun's answer is straightforward. "In negotiations, we do not always get everything we want from the outset. This is a long process, but we have to carry on.”

The Lebanese state has little choice but to pursue the diplomatic battle to restore its sovereignty over all its territory, reach understandings that can end the war, and bring stability back to the southern border. The file is highly complex, shaped by realities on the ground as well as regional and international balances. Aoun realizes that the negotiating task will be far from easy and that quick results are unlikely. For now, however, there is no alternative to staying the diplomatic course and making use of Lebanon's friends to advance its interests.

The three days of meetings in Rome concluded without an agreement on a new pilot zone. Discussions also touched on the monitoring mechanism and other pending files. The process is expected to resume in September.

Lebanese officials see the outcome as part of a broader implementation process that cannot be judged on the basis of a single round. They also acknowledge that Israel is determined to put the cart before the horse and use the negotiations to waste more time. The hope is that the US will turn its positive assessment of the Rome meetings into greater pressure on Israel. That prospect remains uncertain, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears unwilling to make concessions with a difficult parliamentary election awaiting him in October. For now, there is a growing sense that Washington's priority is merely to keep the negotiations alive rather than force an agreement.

The unresolved issues, notably the ceasefire, the monitoring mechanism and the addition of new pilot zones, were not the only matters discussed at the negotiating table. For the first time, participants addressed the role of a third party that would oversee implementation on the ground. A shortlist of candidates has already been agreed upon for this role.

Attendees also agreed to seek a new UN Security Council resolution to provide the legal framework for the post-UNIFIL mandate phase. The round brought together three parallel meetings on the military, political, and legal levels. The military meeting focused on technical issues, including the terminology and wording needed for future coordination between all three parties. Escalation in southern Lebanon was not raised. It was addressed through the mechanism in place since November 27, 2024.

President Aoun confirms that progress was made on both the border and prisoners’ files, and hopes it would soon be reflected in practical measures. Reiterating that his summit with US President Donald Trump had "opened many doors for Lebanon", he also noted that Washington is still overseeing both the pilot zones and the ceasefire files.

Aoun's remarks offer a clear indication of how Lebanon now views the negotiations. Despite repeated setbacks and continued Israeli violations, the talks are preparing the ground for a later phase centered on security arrangements in southern Lebanon. Each round addresses specific issues, while the decision to remain at the table is itself seen by the Lebanese state as an expression of its sovereign right to pursue its interests through diplomacy.

The authorities are well aware that the wider regional conflict is far from over and that Lebanon cannot fully detach itself from nearby developments. Their immediate objective is more modest. They want to shield the country as far as possible from the aftershocks while keeping the negotiating process alive.

The Lebanese state does not want an open-ended negotiation with no timetable or clear objective. Nor does it expect a knockout victory. There is no guarantee that the process will deliver the results Lebanon is seeking. The negotiating track, however, is not one Lebanon intends to abandon. For Aoun, the diplomatic battle is no longer a means of negotiation. He now regards it as a sacred national mission.