On the eve of the meeting between the American and Iranian delegations in Switzerland on a historic and perhaps fateful day, the Lebanese front is back in the spotlight, threatening the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, and at the same time fueling feelings of anxiety and tensions within Israel, where the gap is widening between its government and broad circles within it who fear the continuation of the bleeding and direct criticism at its government.
Against the backdrop of the continued exposure of successive injuries within the ranks of the occupying army, which is not achieving a military breakthrough despite the destruction and displacement, a large number of observers are calling for a pause and a search for ways out of the Lebanese “trap” or “predicament” that is producing diplomatic crises at the level of relations with the United States and with the world.
In this context, and amid widespread criticism of the occupation government’s policies that have turned Israel into a state without a strategic plan or vision, and a state under American guardianship and patronage, former Minister of Agriculture and head of the General Intelligence Service (Shin Bet), Avi Dichter, who is close to Netanyahu, believes that Israel’s central interest is to cooperate with Washington on Lebanon.
Dichter justifies his position by saying: “We and the United States went to war against Iran in order to remove the nuclear threat, and we still need it, because without it this great goal cannot be achieved.”
In contrast, and unlike a large number of Israeli observers, opposition MP Ram Ben Barak, a member of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, stated in media remarks that Israel should reduce its presence in Lebanon while maintaining honorable positions, and not withdraw to the international border, even at the cost of tension and disagreement with the White House.
Betting on strength only
Former National Security Advisor, Reserve General Giora Eiland, believes that the United States has practically enshrined the fact that Lebanon is an Iranian colony where Tehran, not the Beirut government, makes the decisions, just as Israel has become an American colony.
Speaking to the official Hebrew radio station on Sunday morning, Eiland said that Israel should reach an agreement with the Lebanese government instead of relying solely on force, warning against getting involved in a serious crisis with the White House.
On the other hand, reserve general Eyal Ben-Reuven believes that Israel is in a “worsening strategic disaster” because the army has been accumulating military gains for two years, but the political level, led by Netanyahu, is failing.
In response to a question about the risks of withdrawal as long as Hezbollah is still present, Reuven called for aligning the objectives with the existing reality, saying: “The current reality for the army is unreasonable as it is constrained. The government keeps repeating the story of the security belt, and we know that this means more deaths, a loss of prestige and deterrent power, and the loss of the alliance with the great America.”
Speaking to the official Hebrew radio station, Reuven continued to warn of the consequences of the “catastrophe”: “We are now in conflict with our only allied country. The United States wants to stop the war, and Netanyahu wants to continue it for personal reasons. We must coordinate with Washington and with the Lebanese government, with whom we should negotiate and cooperate instead of speaking to them with contempt, unseriousness, and the rhetoric of war.”
He added: “These negotiations in Washington between us and the Lebanese government are not real, otherwise the ministers in our government would not be saying daily: We are staying in Lebanon.”
In his warnings, Reuven believes that conflict with Washington means Israel's decline on all fronts. He said, "Look how we started the wars in Iran, in Lebanon, and in Gaza... and look where we are today. This is the result of a government acting against Israel's national interests."
A large number of Israeli observers agree with Reuven on the danger of “trying the tried and tested” regarding the “security belt,” including Haaretz military analyst Amos Harel, who believes that staying in Lebanon exacts a heavy price from the army in blood, and it is difficult to find any benefit in this stay there.
Dr. Michael Milstein, a retired general and lecturer at Tel Aviv University (former head of the research department in military intelligence), believes that Israel has fallen into a trap.
“When all illusions collapse, Netanyahu’s government looks for a scapegoat and quickly finds one… and this time it is Trump himself. Now Israel has to decide: does it stop and reconsider, or does it run ahead and escalate further?”
Milstein asserts that Israel’s current policies on all fronts will reinforce its image as a rogue state that threatens world peace, has lost its balance, and is acting on mystical motives.
In an article titled “Between Tibnit and Hormuz,” the newspaper’s intelligence analyst, Dr. Ronen Bergman, warns that if Trump becomes convinced that Israel’s operations in southern Lebanon threaten his agreement with Iran, he will grant it further concessions, and then Israel will pay the price twice: losses among its soldiers, and the erosion of its power in Lebanon, and with a worse agreement.
He stressed that the operational problem in Lebanon is not new, but Israel must realize how not to be drawn into the same old security belt.
In its editorial, Haaretz addresses the repercussions of the crisis in Lebanon on relations with Washington, warning Netanyahu of their continued deterioration and calling on him to rein in his vicious dogs and silence his mouthpieces in the country and in the United States who are attacking the American administration, describing Wittkov and Kushner as “dwarf Jews who sold out their brothers for money,” and calling the American president “Donald Hussein Trump” or “the Chamberlain of the era.”
He concluded by saying, “This is a fateful moment for relations with the United States, for Israel’s legitimacy in the world, and for its security, which requires sound judgment and caution, and above all, prioritizing Israel’s strategic future over cynical electoral considerations. The fateful question is: Does Netanyahu control his vicious barking dogs, and is he even interested in stopping the slide towards the abyss?”
