The Lebanon escalation: Netanyahu is betting Trump can’t stop him
As Israel expands the war in Lebanon, Washington’s influence over its closest ally looks increasingly limited
In recent days, Israel has intensified its military campaign in Lebanon, taking the operation to a whole new level. This isn’t just another exchange of strikes in the south of the country, but a demonstrative expansion of Israel’s ground presence beyond the previous boundaries of the conflict. Israeli forces crossed the Litani River and captured Beaufort Castle, a symbolically and strategically significant fortress perched on a high cliff in southern Lebanon. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that the operation was carried out at the direction of the political and military leadership, while the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) explained its objective as the elimination of Hezbollah infrastructure and fighters in the Beaufort area.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the capture of Beaufort as a “dramatic stage and a dramatic change” in Israel’s policy in Lebanon. The goal is to deepen and expand control over areas previously under Hezbollah’s influence. Essentially, this means that Israel is no longer limiting itself to targeted strikes and border deterrence. It is now attempting to create a new military-political reality in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah’s former zone of influence is to be transformed into an area of either direct or indirect Israeli control.
The significance of these actions extends beyond the Lebanese front, however. In recent weeks, Netanyahu has essentially been playing the same game: trying to undermine any kind of agreement between Iran and the United States. The negotiation track was already extremely fragile, vague, and fraught with mutual distrust. But for Israel, even the slightest chance of a compromise between Washington and Tehran is unacceptable. If Trump finally relinquishes the idea of a direct military escalation (such a scenario is unlikely but still possible) and attempts to broker at least a temporary deal with Iran, Israel risks finding itself without the previous level of American involvement, but with the lingering threat of an ‘axis of resistance’ that has every chance of resurfacing in the near future.
This is precisely why the expansion of the operation in Lebanon can be seen as a tool for exerting pressure not only on Hezbollah, but also on the entire negotiation framework surrounding Iran. Netanyahu is demonstrating that even if Washington is willing to discuss de-escalation, Israel retains the right to expand the theater of military operations where it deems necessary. He is thereby forcing Iran to respond, raising the cost of negotiations for Tehran, and simultaneously making it more difficult for Trump to present the diplomatic process as manageable and successful.
Iran’s reaction was almost immediate. Tehran announced its withdrawal from negotiations with the US, citing Israel’s actions in Lebanon. Iran’s logic is understandable: the Lebanese front was seen as part of a broader ceasefire, and Tehran perceives the Israeli operation as a violation of the regional balance of agreements. For Iran, this is a convenient argument to demonstrate that Washington is either incapable of controlling Israel’s actions or is deliberately allowing them while talking about de-escalation.
In other words, Netanyahu achieved the intended effect: US-Iran negotiations have come under additional pressure. Israel formally explains the operation as necessary to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure and ensure the security of Israel’s northern regions. But politically, it appears to be an attempt to disrupt any – even temporary – stabilization of the situation between Washington and Tehran. For Netanyahu, a ceasefire is dangerous because it would draw attention back to the responsibilities of his government, the internal crisis, and the cost of a protracted war. The continuation of the conflict, however, gives a legitimate reason to declare a state of emergency, issue mobilization orders, and focus on security.
In this situation, the US has proposed a new ceasefire initiative to Israel and Lebanon. The American plan appears quite pragmatic: in the first stage, Hezbollah must cease all attacks on Israeli territory, and Israel, in turn, would refrain from escalating the conflict in Beirut. In other words, Washington is not so much trying to resolve the Lebanese crisis definitively as to urgently stop its escalation before it derails the broader plan, which primarily involves negotiations with Iran.
https://www.rt.com/news/640911-lebanon-escalation-netanyahu-trump/