TL;DR
MSM treats Lebanon as a side complication; X will call the Iran deal fake, but the receipt is whether Israeli troops actually leave.
MSM Perspective
The Guardian and Al Jazeera frame Lebanon as a complication in diplomacy.
X Perspective
X reads the Lebanon dispute as proof the Iran settlement cannot bind Israel.
Israel's defense minister, Israel Katz, said Israeli troops would not withdraw from southern Lebanon, while Al Jazeera reported Israeli attacks killed two people despite continuing Washington talks. [1][2]
The paper's June 23 story on Iran's inspection contradiction said the access plan mattered more than claims about access. Lebanon applies the same discipline to the security side of the settlement.
MSM can file Lebanon as a side complication: a border problem attached to a larger Iran file. X will have little patience for that taxonomy. If Israeli troops remain and strikes continue, the online frame will be that the deal was theater from the start.
The paper's narrower point is that Lebanon is an implementation test the public can see. Troops either leave or they do not. Attacks either stop or they do not. Diplomatic language that cannot survive those facts should not be treated as settlement.
The missing document is still practical: who monitors the pullout, on what schedule, and what happens if the line does not move.
-- YOSEF STERN, Jerusalem