Beirut was ready for a political solution, but Israel preferred another war on Hezbollah, as Iran now moves to 'save' Lebanon from Israel and Trump greases the already slippery slope of Israel-U.S. ties.
This assessment is drawn from an analysis published Friday morning in Haaretz by veteran Middle East affairs commentator Zvi Bar'el.
Lebanon becomes Iran's bargaining chip
Bar'el argues that Lebanon could decide the fate of the fragile U.S.-Iran cease-fire now being negotiated. He points to a Thursday social media post by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Iranian Parliament speaker leading Tehran's delegation to talks in Pakistan, who declared that "Lebanon and the entire Resistance Axis … form an inseparable part of the ceasefire" and warned that violations in Lebanon would bring "explicit costs and STRONG REACTIONS."
Ghalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guards air force commander and ex-Tehran mayor, is described by Bar'el as trying to convert Iran's claimed military gains into political leverage, first by locking in a cease-fire on Tehran's terms, then by shaping a broader regional settlement.
Israel's bet on force
According to Bar'el, Israel has long treated Hezbollah as an Iranian arm and an existential threat, and therefore assumed only a collapse of the regime in Tehran would end the northern danger. That collapse never came. Instead, President Donald Trump now treats Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner and has included demands to curb Tehran's proxy network in a 15-point proposal.
Jerusalem, Bar'el writes, insisted Lebanon was a separate front unrelated to Iran, framing its campaign as necessary to secure northern Israel. The result, he says, was a string of tactical strikes — killing commanders, hitting depots — without a strategic path, while Iran made Lebanon its primary diplomatic front.
Trump's 24-hour pivot
Bar'el describes Trump's position as volatile. After initially backing Israel's view that the U.S.-Iran truce did not cover Lebanon, Trump reversed within a day. Under U.S. pressure, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "asked" to scale back strikes and then "ordered" the opening of direct talks with Beirut on disarming Hezbollah and a possible peace framework.
Reports this week confirm that shift: Netanyahu ordered direct talks with Lebanon following U.S. pressure, aiming to disarm Hezbollah, after calls from Trump and envoy Steve Witkoff to ease tensions. Separate coverage notes Trump urged Israel to "low key it" in Lebanon as Israeli strikes threatened the U.S.-Iran deal.
The diplomatic opening Israel passed up
Bar'el is especially critical of what he calls a "resounding diplomatic failure." He notes that early last year, the Lebanese government publicly committed to placing all weapons under exclusive state control, a move that enjoyed broad political support and directly challenged Hezbollah's legitimacy. Last summer, Beirut ordered the army to deploy south, seize arsenals and stop unauthorized arms possession.
The results were limited. Hezbollah, though weakened, reconstituted its command and sustained an attrition war against Israeli forces and northern communities. Israel, Bar'el writes, responded with a Gaza-style concept of an 8-to-10 kilometer security zone inside Lebanon and treated the Lebanese government much as it treats the Palestinian Authority, dismissing international diplomatic efforts as a nuisance.
A deal, he contends, would not have disarmed Hezbollah overnight, but could have built Israel-Lebanon security cooperation: intelligence sharing against Hezbollah and Iran, a U.S.- and European-backed modernization of the Lebanese army, joint border monitoring, and even coordinated operations modeled on Israel's work with Egypt in Sinai or with Jordan.
Iran moves to be Lebanon's patron
With Washington and Tehran talking, Bar'el says Tehran has seized the narrative. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian posted that "Iran will never forsake its Lebanese brothers and sisters," framing Lebanon as strategically equivalent to the Strait of Hormuz. Where Iran once gave proxies autonomy, it now presents itself as Lebanon's direct protector against Israel.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Bar'el notes, angrily rejected that framing, insisting only Beirut would decide on negotiations. Until Trump's intervention Thursday, Aoun had no Israeli counterpart willing to talk.
A Skeptical Conclusion
Bar'el closes with caution. He dismisses the triumphant rhetoric from Netanyahu and his defense minister about total war in the north, and warns that an ocean has historically separated Netanyahu's declarations from implementation. Whether Lebanon becomes an American diplomatic achievement against Iran, he writes, will now depend less on Israeli military planning and more on Trump's determination to keep his Iran talks alive.