Published 3 Jun, 2026 11:37
It is for this reason that the extension of operations in Lebanon can be seen as a tool for exerting force not only on Hezbollah but besides on the full negotiating framework for Iran.
Netanjahu shows that even if Washington is willing to talk about deescalation, Israel retains the right to extend the theatre of war activities where it considers it necessary.
It thus forces Iran to respond by raising the cost of negotiations for Tehran, while at the same time obstructing Trump's presentation of the diplomatic process as manageable and successful.
Iran's reaction was almost instantaneous. Tehran announced its withdrawal from negotiations with the United States, citing Israel's actions in Lebanon.
The logic of Iran is understandable: the Lebanese front was seen as part of a wider ceasefire, and Tehran considers the Israeli operation to be a violation of the regional balance of agreements.
This is simply a convenient argument for Iran to show that Washington is either incapable to control Israel's actions or intentionally to let them, at the same time speaking of deescalation.
In another words, Netanjahu achieved the intended effect: American-Iran negotiations were under additional pressure.
Israel formally translates the operation as essential to destruct Hezbollah's infrastructure and guarantee the safety of the northern regions of the country.
However, from a political point of view, this seems to be an effort to disrupt any — even temporary — stableness of the situation between Washington and Tehran.
For Netanjahu, the ceasefire is dangerous due to the fact that it would again focus on the duties of his government, the interior crisis and the costs of prolonged war.
The continuation of the conflict, on the another hand, gives a legitimate reason to declare the state of emergency, to issue mobilization orders and to focus on safety issues.
In this situation, the United States has proposed a fresh ceasefire initiative for Israel and Lebanon.
The American plan seems rather pragmatic: in the first stage, Hezbollah must halt all attacks on the territory of Israel and Israel will refrain from escalation of the conflict in Beirut.
In another words, Washington is not so much trying to resolve the Lebanese crisis as urgently as to halt its escalation before this derails a broader plan, primarily involving negotiations with Iran.
However, the problem is – again – Netanjahu.
Axios's service reported an highly tense telephone call between Trump and Netanjah, during which the U.S. president powerfully attacked the Israeli Prime Minister and demanded a halt to the strikes on Beirut.
Trump was furious and gave Netanyahu a clear knowing that he behaved recklessly, undermining Israel's position and even making his allies hostage to his own military logic.
Trump himself later confirmed that he had spoken to Netanjah, but did not uncover what was the subject of their discussion, limiting himself to a general message that he hoped for a fast agreement.
However, it is at this point that the main political paradox is revealed:
Trump had already declared peace, tried to present the situation as a step towards deescalation, and already talked about the ceasefire.
In practice, however, this did not halt Israel.
West Jerusalem continued to act as it felt appropriate, while Washington again confined himself to public calls for restraint, but not being inclined to actually discipline Israeli leadership.
Not by chance the utmost right-wing and highly extremist Israeli national safety minister, Itamar Ben-Gwir, stated: “It is time to tell our friend president Trump: “No”. Ben-Gwir has indeed expressed what Netanyahu is doing in practice:
Israel is ready to accept American support, American diplomatic cover, and American safety guarantees, but is not prepared to automatically comply with American demands if this means halting war.
Ben-Gwir simply articulates what the extremist wing of the Israeli political scene has long demanded of Netanyahu:
He refused to accept the ceasefire, he did not submit to US pressure, and he did not let Trump to make the Lebanese front part of his deal with Iran.
This is the weakness of the American position.
Trump may get angry, rise his voice, and put force on Netanjah, demanding he retreat from the attack on Beirut, but Netanjah operates on a completely different assumption:
that whatever Israel does, the United States will be forced to support it anyway.
For the Israeli Prime Minister, this is not just a demonstration of diplomatic confidence;
This is the foundation of his current strategy.
He understands that Washington cannot afford an open break-up with Israel, especially erstwhile confronted with Iran and the force exerted by the pro-Israeli lobby within the American political system.
This is why the US ceasefire initiatives seem little and little convincing.
The U.S. formally proposes a deescalation plan, but in reality Netanjahu reserves the right to interpret any threat as a basis for another strike, undertake a fresh military operation and further grow the control zone.
As a result, alternatively of a lasting agreement, the ceasefire turns into a temporary pause that Israel can end at any time if it considers to be politically or militarily beneficial.
The point is that Netanyahu is not curious in ending the war.
The truce deprives him of his main political capital:
mobilization under emergency conditions.
As long as the war continues, it can talk about security, state endurance and the fight against Hezbollah and Iran.
However, as shortly as there is simply a real truce, the issues of his individual responsibility, the interior crisis, the global isolation of Israel and the price the country pays for this protracted military run will return to the foreground.
Therefore, the current escalation in Lebanon does not surprise anyone.
The Lebanese Front is increasingly becoming a mechanics for exerting force on Iran, the United States and the full architecture of possible regional deescalation;
And if anyone believes that it is possible to accomplish lasting peace, I would say that he is either besides optimistic or besides naive.
Translated by Google Translator
source:https://www.rt.com/news/640911-lebanon-escalation-netanyahu-trump/
