It may be impossible, in the literal sense of the word, to find a precedent from the long history of negotiations that have accompanied decades of conflict in the Middle East since the emergence of the Palestinian issue, with which to compare the current negotiating process taking place between the U.S. administration and Iran, under Pakistani and Qatari mediation.

Even within the strictly American context, and despite the flood of commentary attempting to compare the nuclear agreement reached during Barack Obama's presidency with the memorandum of understanding concluded by Donald Trump's administration with what the president likes to envision as the third generation of leadership within the mullah regime or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, many elements of that comparison have already collapsed, proving fundamentally different from today's reality.

This preliminary conclusion is therefore necessary to dispel the illusions of those still searching their memories for so-called historical benchmarks or fixed diplomatic references on which to build expectations and conclusions regarding the successive U.S.-Iranian agreement. The daily shocks, surprises, and repercussions surrounding it are likely to remain without limits, even after the sixty-day period of executive negotiations in Switzerland or elsewhere comes to an end.

Against this backdrop, it was only natural for the Lebanese to express further astonishment at this emerging style of diplomacy, unfolding in Switzerland after Islamabad, which effectively "forced" Lebanon—without consulting its authorities beforehand or even involving them in preliminary consultations—into a secondary track that led to the creation of what was termed the "De-escalation Avoidance Cell" in Lebanon, initially composed of the United States, Iran, and the Lebanese Republic.

To complete the celebrations, beneath raised banners and large portraits of the late Ali Khamenei and his heir apparent son, who has yet to appear on the road to Beirut Airport, the American-Qatari duo informed the Lebanese president of the joyful development. In reality, if there is a significance greater than the manner in which this nascent cell was formed—first in isolation from Lebanon and then through Iran's inclusion in it for the first time under a decision carrying regional and international implications linked to the Swiss negotiations and the signing of the memorandum of understanding—it lies in the fact that Lebanon has been drawn into a bewildering multiplicity of tracks for which neither history nor diplomatic practice offers any precedent. This cell appeared to be nothing more and nothing less than a continuation of the process of increasing Iranian gains, even as the United States itself became entangled in the consequences of blatant contradictions by granting those gains without any apparent logical justification.

Lebanon now finds itself simultaneously on both the Swiss and Washington tracks. What greater cause for celebration could there be than such indulgence? Yet which path is Lebanon actually expected to follow, especially as the media outlets of Hezbollah, Iran, and those eager for gains that might revive the Iranian regime are already promoting a third Qatari track? And who knows what fourth track may emerge under the banners of "Thank You Iran" and "Thank You Qatar" once again?

Then comes the practical question: which body will be responsible for overseeing the ceasefire in Lebanon and the promised Israeli withdrawal? Will it be the newly established tripartite cell, or the "mechanism committee," both of which operate under American leadership and sponsorship?

More importantly, beyond this turbulence of overlapping tracks and competing frameworks, who can guarantee (and when and how) that Lebanon will not once again become an implicit arena for conflict among the architects of these multiple tracks and their partners, at a moment when it is increasingly being transformed into an experimental space for a marriage of interests that has brought the United States and Iran together?

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.