US Envoy: Israel-Hezbollah 2024 Ceasefire Agreement "Didn't Work"

The US envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, has declared that the ceasefire agreement brokered between Israel and Hezbollah "didn't work," highlighting ongoing hostilities, incomplete withdrawals, and widespread scepticism regarding the implementation of the accord. The deal, which had sought to halt cross-border conflict and secure southern Lebanon, was marred by continued violence and competing claims of non-compliance from both parties.

Ceasefire Under Strain: US Admits Agreement 'Didn't Work'

In a candid admission marking the latest setback in Middle East peacemaking, US Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack stated in Beirut that the ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Lebanese group Hezbollah “didn’t work”. 

"The bottom line is, you have a cessation of hostilities agreement that's in effect, it didn't work, right? So, there's reasons why that cessation of hostilities agreement didn't work, which is part of what we're all trying to solve,"

Barrack informed reporters, as cited by Anadolu Agency. The ceasefire, implemented after a bloody year-long conflict, proved fragile as both sides accused one another of breaches and failed to achieve the expected military withdrawals and calm.

What Were the Original Terms of the Ceasefire?

The ceasefire agreement, officially brokered on 27 November 2024 with mediation by the United States, France, and other actors, mandated a 60-day cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. The terms required:

• Israel to withdraw all its forces from southern Lebanon within the implementation window.
• Hezbollah to move its forces and heavy weapons north of the Litani River, at least 30km from the Israeli border.
• The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and UN peacekeepers to deploy throughout southern Lebanon to maintain order.
• A five-country monitoring panel, led by the United States, was established to resolve disputes, monitor compliance, and ensure there would be no rearmament by Hezbollah during this period.

During this period, civilians evacuated from conflict areas were expected to return home, with Israel and Lebanon retaining rights to self-defence but with clear stipulations meant to prevent renewed clashes.

Why Did The Ceasefire Collapse?

Ongoing Violence and Unilateral Actions

Shortly after the ceasefire went into effect, Israeli military actions in southern Lebanon continued, with reports from Al Jazeera and other outlets noting that Israeli troops stayed in eastern and strategic border areas, citing insufficient withdrawals by Hezbollah as justification. According to Al Jazeera’s Sanad agency, more than 30 verified incidents of Israeli strikes on Lebanese territory occurred during the ceasefire window, directly contravening the agreement's spirit and terms.

Conversely, Israel accused Hezbollah of not sufficiently relocating north of the Litani River and claimed the LAF was too slow in deploying to sensitive border districts, creating vacuums that fueled renewed tension. As reported by The Washington Institute, while much of Hezbollah’s visible infrastructure in southern Lebanon was dismantled during the truce, full compliance from both sides remained elusive.

US Perspective and Frustration

Speaking in Beirut on Monday, as reported by both Anadolu Agency and The Times of Israel, Tom Barrack expanded on Washington’s complicated position:

“America is not here to compel Israel to do anything. We're here, as I said 100 times, to help you come to a conclusion with your neighbours,” adding, “You have a Syrian government, in effect, they need to be held accountable. They also need to be given the responsibility that they're there to do”.

Barrack reiterated that US diplomatic efforts concentrated on encouraging inclusive governance and dialogue, not enforcing military solutions. He directly critiqued Israel’s strikes in Syria, warning that such interventions complicated regional stability efforts. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz, however, responded that Barrack was “not aware of the facts” and justified ongoing operations as necessary for protecting the Druze minority and countering Hezbollah's military build-up.

Did Israel or Hezbollah Breach the Terms?

Israeli Military Presence and Airstrikes

Media investigations by Al Jazeera, The Washington Institute, and Sanad found that despite the ceasefire deadline, Israeli forces remained in “five strategic” Lebanese positions along the border even after the 60-day transition expired. These outposts were retained by Israel in the name of “security needs”, a move deemed a breach by Lebanese and UN monitors.

Hezbollah and Lebanese officials, including Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, insisted that their paramilitary units had complied with withdrawal provisions and accused Israel of using unsubstantiated claims of incomplete Hezbollah withdrawal to justify its own delays. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) repeatedly urged both sides to respect the agreement and concluded that Israeli aerial incursions had persisted throughout the truce.

Civilian Impact and Statement by Joe Biden

Civilians on both sides endured a precarious return to their homes amid the uncertainty. President Joe Biden, in his November 26 statement announcing the agreement, conveyed cautious optimism:

“I am happy to share that both governments have accepted the US proposal to put an end to the devastating conflict between Israel and Hezbollah,”

but he admitted hostilities had killed more than 3,800 people in Lebanon alone in the previous 13 months. He emphasised that

“the agreement is intended to be a lasting ceasefire,”

but subsequent events painted a more troubled reality.

How Did Hezbollah and Lebanon Respond?

Hezbollah's leadership, via Secretary-General Naim Qassem, gave formal approval for the ceasefire but remained publicly sceptical about Israel’s intentions and commitment. As reported by The Times of Israel, Hezbollah insisted it would not disarm or negotiate on remaining weapons as long as Israel continued military actions in Lebanon.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun also formally delivered Lebanon’s detailed response to the US on proposals to achieve disarmament of Hezbollah, reiterating that disarmament and compliance must be reciprocal and occurring under full Lebanese sovereignty, not as a result of unilateral Israeli or foreign actions.

Who Was Responsible for Monitoring and What Went Wrong?

A US-led Oversight Committee, with representatives from France, Israel, Lebanon, and the UN, was empowered to monitor and address ceasefire violations. The Lebanese Armed Forces and UNIFIL peacekeepers were tasked to patrol the zones from which both Israelis and Hezbollah militants were to withdraw. However, practical constraints, lack of mutual trust, and disputed definitions of “compliance” led to gaps that allowed ongoing violations.

The Regional and International Implications

As the ceasefire faltered, the broader region remained poised for further escalation. The United States, led diplomatically by Tom Barrack and Amos Hochstein, repeatedly called for Lebanese and Israeli leaders to uphold promises and continue negotiations over contested border areas. The role of regional players, including France’s commitment to strengthening the Lebanese Armed Forces, was highlighted as essential for lasting stability, according to the American Jewish Committee and Atlantic Council.

UN sources speaking to Al Jazeera expressed concern that the conflict’s trajectory threatened to upend any prospects for peace in the region unless both parties honoured their obligations. As of July 2025, despite the ceasefire’s technical expiry and Israel’s continued presence in border outposts, large-scale hostilities had not resumed, but a lasting solution appeared distant.

Statements of Key Figures

• US Envoy Tom Barrack: “The bottom line is, you have a cessation of hostilities agreement that's in effect, it didn't work, right? So, there's reasons why that cessation of hostilities agreement didn't work, which is part of what we're all trying to solve”.
• President Joe Biden: “The agreement is intended to be a lasting ceasefire. If Hezbollah or anyone else breaks the deal and poses a direct threat to Israel, Israel retains the right to self-defence, consistent with international law”.
• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Warned that Israel “would respond decisively to any breach” of the agreement, while defending continued military actions on grounds of security gaps and slow LAF deployment.
• Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem: Asserted Hezbollah’s right to armed resistance “as long as Israeli aggression and violations persist,” refusing full disarmament under present conditions.
• Lebanese Armed Forces: Repeatedly dismissed Israeli claims of delayed deployment, stating “our units are ready and waiting to act, but require Israeli withdrawal to assume full responsibility”.
• UNIFIL: Called on all parties to “respect the spirit and letter of the agreement, avoid provocations, and enable displaced civilians to return safely”.

Next For Israel-Lebanon Border

With the ceasefire described by the US as having "not worked", tensions remain high. The international oversight mechanism continues to mediate, but sporadic exchanges and mutual distrust threaten prospects for a true end to hostilities.

Experts writing in the Atlantic Council remain sceptical that a more permanent peace can be achieved without deeper political settlement within Lebanon, Israeli assurance of rapid and full withdrawals, and international guarantees for disarmament and reconstruction. Most commentators agree that regional calm depends on adherence to agreements already negotiated — and that, absent genuine compliance, another escalation could be imminent.

The November ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel, widely hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, ultimately failed to deliver the security and clarity it promised, as confirmed by US envoy Tom Barrack’s frank assessment and ongoing violations documented by monitors and media. The international community continues to call for renewed commitment to peace even as the prospects for a durable settlement remain clouded by mistrust, sporadic violence, and competing narratives of compliance and blame.