As Israel expands the war in Lebanon, Washingtons 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.

The problem, however, is again Netanyahu. Axios reported that an extremely tense phone call took place between Trump and Netanyahu, in which the US president lashed out at the Israeli prime minister and demanded that he stop the strikes on Beirut. Trump was furious and made it clear to Netanyahu that he was behaving recklessly, undermining Israel's position, and turning even its allies into hostages of his own military logic.

Trump himself later confirmed that he talked with Netanyahu but did not reveal what they discussed, limiting himself to a general statement about his hope for a quick agreement. However, this is precisely where the main political paradox emerges: Trump had already declared peace, had already tried to portray the situation as a move toward de-escalation, and had already talked about a ceasefire. But in practice, this did not deter Israel. West Jerusalem continued to act as it saw fit, while Washington once again found itself publicly calling for restraint but unwilling to actually constrain the Israeli leadership.

It is no coincidence that the far-right, extremely radical Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said, "This is the time to tell our friend, President Trump, 'no'." Ben-Gvir essentially articulated what Netanyahu is doing in practice: Israel is ready to accept US support, US diplomatic cover, and US security guarantees, but is not prepared to automatically submit to American demands if that means stopping the war. Ben-Gvir is simply stating what the radical wing of Israeli politics has long demanded of Netanyahu: not to agree to a ceasefire, not to give in to US pressure, and not to allow Trump to turn the Lebanese front into part of his deal with Iran.

Therein lies the weakness of the American position. Trump may get angry, shout, and exert pressure on Netanyahu, demanding not to attack Beirut, but Netanyahu operates on a different basis: that no matter what Israel does, the US will still be forced to support it. For the Israeli prime minister, this is not just a show of diplomatic confidence; it is the foundation of his entire current strategy. He understands that Washington cannot afford an open break with Israel, especially in the face of a confrontation with Iran and pressure from the pro-Israel lobby within the US political system.

This is precisely why American ceasefire initiatives look increasingly unconvincing. Formally, the US is offering a de-escalation plan, but in reality, Netanyahu reserves the right to interpret any threat as grounds for a new strike, a new military operation, and a new expansion of control. As a result, instead of a lasting agreement, the ceasefire turns into a temporary pause that Israel can terminate at any moment if it is deemed advantageous from a political or military standpoint.

The main point is that Netanyahu is not interested in ending the war. A ceasefire deprives him of his main political resource: state of emergency mobilization. As long as the war continues, he can talk about security, the survival of the state, and the fight against Hezbollah and Iran. As soon as a real ceasefire is established, questions of his personal responsibility, the internal crisis, Israel's international isolation, and the price the country is paying for the protracted military campaign will return to the forefront.

Therefore, the current escalation in Lebanon is no surprise to anyone. The Lebanese front is increasingly turning into a mechanism for exerting pressure on Iran, the US, and the entire architecture of possible regional de-escalation; and if anyone believes that lasting peace can be achieved, I'd say they are either too optimistic or too naive.

(RT.com)