Lebanon on fire: Why Israel derailed US-Iran diplomacy

Netanyahu’s 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. Read more You can’t handle the truce: Trump has redefined ‘ceasefire’ in the Middle East 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 a