Netanyahus new offensive has undermined talks, strained European patience and raised the risk of another long occupation

The situation in Lebanon has pushed Iran out of the negotiating process with the US and has once again shown that Middle Eastern diplomacy today depends less on formal negotiations than on what is happening on the ground.

Tehran has suspended its indirect exchange of messages with Washington through intermediaries against the backdrop of Israel's expanding operation against Lebanon and Hezbollah. This decision was a reaction to a broader crisis in which the Lebanese front has become intertwined with US-Iranian negotiations, Israel's security calculations, Lebanon's domestic politics, Hezbollah's position, Tehran's regional strategy, and the Trump administration's attempt to impose at least a temporary formula for de-escalation.

The offensive

At first glance, the crisis appears to follow the familiar pattern of Israeli-Lebanese confrontation. Israel says it is acting to protect the country's northern areas, from which residents were evacuated after Hezbollah attacks. Hezbollah presents its actions as resistance to Israeli strikes and links the Lebanese front to the broader struggle against Israel. The Lebanese state calls for an end to the attacks and for respect for its sovereignty, yet it lacks the power either to control Hezbollah's decisions or to stop the Israeli military. The US is trying to keep negotiations alive because a wider regional war would threaten its interests, energy markets, and the positions of its allies. Iran, meanwhile, sees the developments in Lebanon not as a local episode, but as a blow to the entire architecture of its regional influence.

As long as the war remained limited to exchanges of fire along the border, it could still be presented as a controlled conflict. Yet the expansion of Israel's ground operation, its advance deeper into southern Lebanon, its strikes on areas linked to Hezbollah, and its attacks on Beirut's southern suburbs have changed the politics around the conflict. Rather than simply responding to threats, as Israel claims to be, it is trying to forcefully alter the security landscape of the region.

Israel's advance in the area of Beaufort Castle has been especially symbolic. For military planners, it is an important height and a point of control. For the Lebanese, however, it is a place associated with the memory of earlier wars and resistance against Israeli presence. The seizure or occupation of such an area would be a signal that Israel's goal is deep intervention in southern Lebanon. This is why France requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. For Paris, which has historical ties to Lebanon and a strong interest in preserving Lebanese statehood, Israel's advance represents a threat not only to security, but also to the very principle of Lebanese sovereignty.

The Europeans' patience is wearing thin

Israel's traditional partners in Europe have criticized particular Israeli actions before, but they have usually tried to maintain a balance between recognizing Israel's right to security and calling for restraint. However, Israel's actions on the ground have not helped maintain that balance. After the war in Gaza, European public opinion had already become far more critical of Israel. With the new operation in Lebanon, the risk of a long-term occupation of the south, and the collapse of talks with Iran, even Israel's customary allies begin to distance themselves. They may not be taking the side of Iran or Hezbollah, but they are increasingly unwilling to offer unconditional political cover for the policies of the Israeli cabinet.

Israel's strength has always rested not only on its military capabilities and its alliance with the US, but also on its ability to remain part of the Western political system. If France, Germany, the UK, and other European partners increasingly come to see Israel's actions as a source of further escalation, international support will begin to shrink. This does not mean an immediate rupture in relations, but it does mean a gradual erosion of political patience. We may see colder official statements, followed by pressure at the United Nations, and eventually debates will emerge over arms supplies, trade agreements, legal accountability, and recognition of new political realities on the Palestinian and Lebanese tracks.

Why is Israel doing this?

Why does Israel need this escalation? Military necessity is only part of the answer. Israel's leadership wants to bring residents of the north back home, restore deterrence after Hezbollah's attacks, and show Israeli society that the state is capable of defending its borders. Since October 7, 2023, security has become a test of public trust in the state itself. For Netanyahu and his cabinet, the northern front has become a measure of whether the government can restore control in places where citizens have felt abandoned.

There is, however, a second layer. Israel views Hezbollah not merely as a key component of Iran's military system on Israel's borders. Striking Hezbollah means striking Iran. Israel wants to dismantle the infrastructure that allows Tehran to maintain pressure on Israel through Lebanon. The operation against Hezbollah is therefore directed simultaneously at Beirut, Tehran, and Washington. Israel is making clear that it does not intend to wait for the outcome of US-Iranian negotiations if those talks might preserve a situation in which Hezbollah retains an armed presence in southern Lebanon.

A third layer has to do with Israeli domestic politics. Netanyahu's government depends on right-wing and religious-nationalist forces for which security means territorial control rather than compromise. In this political environment, temporary security zones can easily turn into demands for long-term military presence. In Gaza, this has manifested itself in discussions about displacement, military administration, and the possible return of settlements. In relation to Lebanon, this means to control the south of the country, push Hezbollah back toward the Litani River, and create a reality in which Israel itself defines the perimeter of its security.

'Greater Israel' and permanent occupation

This is where one must speak carefully about the idea of 'Greater Israel.' It is not the official doctrine of the Israeli state toward Lebanon, yet it does exist within the worldview of certain radical right-wing and settler circles. These groups see neighboring territories as part of a broader historical and biblical map. Even when this ideology does not translate into an explicit decision to annex southern Lebanon, it still creates a political atmosphere in which the occupation of other people's territory can be justified as a historical right as well as a strategic necessity.

The danger lies in the fact that temporary military solutions in the Middle East often become long-term facts on the ground. Military action, initially aimed at eliminating a threat, morphs into observation posts, supply routes, exclusion zones, and special access regimes. Then the argument is made that withdrawal is impossible because the enemy will return, and you end up with an occupation, even if it is not formally called one. Lebanon has already lived through such a scenario. Israel's earlier presence in the south was also justified by the security needs of the northern Israeli communities, yet for the Lebanese it became a symbol of occupation and one of the factors that strengthened Hezbollah.

The Hezbollah paradox and the Lebanese state

Israel wants to weaken Hezbollah, but it may end up giving it a new political resource. Inside Lebanon, attitudes toward Hezbollah are far from uniform. Part of society believes that the movement, because of its ties to Iran, drags the country into war without the consent of all Lebanese. For many Christians, Sunnis, and segments of the secular public, Hezbollah is a state within a state, one that limits Lebanese sovereignty and subordinates the country to Tehran's external strategy. Yet when Israel attacks, criticizing Hezbollah becomes politically more difficult - because it is defending the country against external aggression.

The Lebanese state is in the weakest position of all. It cannot disarm Hezbollah, because doing so would risk an internal confrontation - but neither can it stop Israel without Hezbollah's military strength. It depends on international assistance, but international mechanisms cannot quickly change the situation on the ground. As a result, Lebanon once again becomes the arena for other actors' strategies. Israel is trying to solve the problem of its northern security, Iran is defending its regional network of allies, the US is trying to preserve the negotiations, Europe fears a new destabilization on the Mediterranean, and Lebanese civilians pay the price.

For Hezbollah, the current crisis is also a test. On the one hand, it is suffering military and infrastructural losses, but on the other, the Israeli offensive itself helps its political narrative. Before this escalation, internal Lebanese voices had been asking why the country should remain hostage to Iran's strategy, Hezbollah can now legitimately ask "Would you rather Israel dictate its terms?"

Trump's stakes

For Iran, Hezbollah is one of the most important elements of its deterrence system against Israel. If Israel can destroy Hezbollah's positions in Lebanon without paying a serious price, Iran's entire regional strategy is put under pressure. Tehran's withdrawal from the negotiating process with Washington was an attempt to restore leverage as much as it was a gesture of solidarity towards an ally. Iran will not discuss de-escalation with Washington while Israel expands its operation on the Lebanese front.

This is especially important because the Trump administration has been trying to negotiate on several fronts at once, seeking to maintain a channel with Iran, secure an extension of the ceasefire, reduce risks in the Strait of Hormuz, and at the same time support a process of settlement between Israel and Lebanon. American officials described contacts on the Lebanese track as productive and positive. Netanyahu, for his part, spoke of the need for negotiations that would address Hezbollah's disarmament and the establishment of peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon. On paper, this looked like an opportunity to tie together Israel's security, Lebanon's stabilization, and dialogue with Iran.

In reality, while the US was trying to persuade the parties of the need for a deal, Israel intensified its offensive, and Tehran saw this as proof that Washington was either unable or unwilling to restrain its ally. As a result, the talks that were supposed to reduce tensions became hostage to military action.

The US now finds itself in a contradictory position. It wants to support its key ally Israel, but also prevent a wider war that would threaten American bases and trade routes, and avoid a dangerous direct war with Iran. It also wants to stabilize Lebanon because another war there could destroy what remains of state governance and trigger a regional explosion. Yet these objectives do not fit together well if Israel continues to act as though the diplomatic process does not constrain it.

Netanyahu's gambit

Has Israel once again undermined an attempt at negotiations between Iran and the US? Formally, it can argue that its actions are driven solely by security considerations. Formally, Tehran can say that it is suspending exchanges with Washington because of violations and mistrust. Formally, the US can insist that negotiations remain possible. But the political sequence of events is clear enough.

Whether Israel intentionally set out to sabotage the talks or not, that is exactly what happened. For Israel's right-wing cabinet, any US-Iranian agreement that does not eliminate Hezbollah and dismantle Iran's regional network is unacceptable. Israel's escalation in Lebanon pushes Iran out of the process, strengthens the hawks in Tehran, and gives the Israeli right an argument that Iran cannot be negotiated with.

At the same time, Israeli policy itself has become hostage to domestic dynamics. Netanyahu, under pressure from right-wing allies and amid distrust from a significant part of society, feels the constant need to demonstrate strength. Any halt to the operation in Lebanon without a visible result would be seen as weakness, and any pressure from the US could be used as evidence that only a hardline cabinet can protect the country from external diktat.

The long term

Israel's decision to turn up the heat and jettison diplomacy comes at a strategic cost. It can win battles against Hezbollah, destroy its command centers and infrastructure, and push it away from the border. But if the end result is another occupation, it not solve any of Israel's problems in the long term. On the contrary, it could again turn Hezbollah into a symbol of resistance, weaken the Lebanese critics of the movement, and return the region to a cycle it has already experienced. All the while Israel's European partners will continue to lose patience and see ever more reasons to restrain Israel. The main conclusion is that Israel may achieve a tactical advantage in Lebanon while losing the strategic environment around it.

The bigger question arising from Israel's actions in Lebanon is whether diplomacy can survive in a region where every military operation immediately becomes part of a larger bargain. The situation in Lebanon has already pushed Iran out of the negotiating process with the US. It may now determine whether Washington retains any room for mediation, whether Trump can impose even a temporary deal on the parties, whether Lebanon can avoid another collapse, and whether Israel will turn yet another security operation into a new cycle of occupation, resistance, and international isolation.

(RT.com)