Four days of intensive negotiations in Washington that produced a landmark framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel were marked by deep disagreements, last-minute interventions from senior U.S. officials, and a shared determination by both sides to prevent Iran from expanding its influence in Lebanon, according to U.S., Israeli, and Lebanese officials cited by Axios.

The agreement, brokered by the Trump administration, is widely viewed as the most significant political understanding between Israel and Lebanon in four decades. Yet officials involved in the talks acknowledged that the broader vision of a lasting peace remains uncertain, amid concerns that Hezbollah could respond violently and destabilize Lebanon. The agreement has also raised questions about its compatibility with understandings reached separately between Washington and Tehran in Switzerland.

The talks unfolded against the backdrop of recent U.S.-Iran negotiations, during which Iran succeeded in placing Lebanon on the agenda.

The resulting memorandum of understanding called for preserving the ceasefire in Lebanon and safeguarding the country's territorial integrity, even as Israel continues to maintain a military presence in parts of southern Lebanon.

During negotiations in Switzerland, the United States and Iran also agreed to establish a new "deconfliction cell" involving Lebanon as well as Qatari and Pakistani mediators to help preserve the ceasefire.

The proposal alarmed both Israeli and Lebanese officials, who feared it would legitimize Iran's influence in Lebanon and strengthen Hezbollah's position. The announcement came just as Israeli and Lebanese delegations were preparing for a crucial round of U.S.-mediated negotiations in Washington.

According to Axios, tensions surfaced immediately when the talks opened Tuesday at the U.S. State Department.

Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter delivered a sharply worded opening statement, describing the new U.S.-Iran understandings on Lebanon as "a train wreck."

Leiter questioned whether Washington remained committed to reducing Iran's influence in Lebanon, arguing that this had been the central objective of the Israel-Lebanon negotiations.

Lebanon's delegation then sought its own clarifications regarding the U.S. position.

"The Lebanese were on their heels," one source with direct knowledge of the discussions told Axios.

Although U.S. mediators insisted their objective remained an Israeli-Lebanese agreement free from outside interference, a U.S. official acknowledged that the opening day of negotiations was "pretty ugly."

Participants became increasingly entrenched in their positions, particularly on security issues, with several attendees feeling the negotiations were moving backward rather than forward.

The discussions proceeded simultaneously on military and political tracks, with military officers handling security arrangements while diplomats negotiated the political framework. Senior officials from both the State Department and the Pentagon served as mediators.

Negotiators worked on three separate documents: a framework agreement, a security annex, and an arrangement governing an initial Israeli withdrawal from two pilot zones that would subsequently come under the control of the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Momentum improved on Wednesday, prompting U.S. officials to believe an agreement could be finalized the following day.

However, negotiations stalled again Thursday as differences resurfaced, particularly over the conditions and locations of the proposed Israeli withdrawals. U.S. mediators were unable to bridge disagreements across the three documents and merge them into a single package.

By Thursday evening, both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun instructed their negotiating teams to seek additional time for consultations with their respective governments. U.S. mediators agreed to extend the talks by another day.

The negotiations received sustained attention from the highest levels of the U.S. administration.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had just returned to Washington from a Gulf tour, had spoken by phone with both Netanyahu and Aoun roughly eight times since Tuesday. Vice President JD Vance also held separate conversations with both leaders.

According to sources familiar with the discussions, Rubio emphasized that President Donald Trump wanted the agreement completed before the end of the week.

"The high-level attention from Washington made it clear to both sides that there was a clear sense of urgency here," one source said.

On Friday morning, Rubio personally joined the negotiations alongside chief U.S. negotiator Dan Holler, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, CENTCOM Marines commander Lt. Gen. Joseph Clearfield, and Pentagon officials Daniel Zimmerman and Michael Dimino in an effort to resolve the remaining disputes.

During the final phase of negotiations, Washington requested two changes from Israel: withdrawing from one village in southern Lebanon still under Israeli control and explicitly stating that the move would represent the beginning of a broader Israeli military redeployment from Lebanon.

Axios reported that Leiter pressed Netanyahu and senior Israeli officials during a phone call to accept the U.S.-proposed changes. The discussion reportedly became heated as Netanyahu initially resisted the amendments, with two sources saying the ambassador raised his voice while arguing that Israel should approve what he considered a significant diplomatic achievement.

A source close to Leiter disputed that characterization, saying the ambassador merely spoke loudly because of poor phone reception.

Leiter himself told Axios that consultations with officials in Jerusalem during negotiations were routine.

"During one of the update calls, a professional, substantive, and at times sharp discussion took place, during which a range of views was heard regarding the best way to maximize the achievements of the negotiations while fully safeguarding Israel's vital interests," he said.

Despite persistent mistrust, both delegations ultimately concluded that reaching an agreement was preferable to allowing Iran to gain a larger role in shaping developments in Lebanon.

"There wasn't a lot of trust between Israel and Lebanon, but eventually both parties understood they needed to get a deal in order to keep control of the process and not allow Iran in," a source with direct knowledge of the negotiations said.

The agreement quickly generated political tensions inside Lebanon.

Hezbollah attempted to organize demonstrations in Beirut against the agreement on Friday but attracted only several hundred participants, who were quickly dispersed.

The following day, Lebanese security forces removed dozens of Hezbollah posters thanking Iran's Supreme Leader for the ceasefire from the main road leading to Beirut's international airport.

The government replaced them with posters bearing the slogan, "Lebanon First." Some of those posters were later burned by Hezbollah supporters.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem rejected the agreement outright, declaring it "null and void" and describing it as "a humiliation, disgrace, and a surrender of sovereignty." He also vowed that Hezbollah would continue its "resistance" against Israel's presence in southern Lebanon.

Later on Saturday, Trump spoke with Aoun and congratulated him on the agreement.

According to the Lebanese presidency, Trump pledged that the United States would provide the support necessary to implement the agreement, reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, and help extend the authority of the Lebanese state across its entire territory.

At the conclusion of the call, Trump told Aoun he looked forward to welcoming him to the White House. The Lebanese president's visit is expected to take place in mid-July.