The ceasefire between the United States, Israel, and Iran, which began on April 8, is at best on the edge.
Iran and Israel exchanged gunfire on both sides over the weekend, which only came to a halt after US President Donald Trump intervened on Monday. But while the violence may have paused after President Trump called on both sides to “stop the shooting,” Israel’s attacks on southern Lebanon continue. A cessation of attacks in southern Lebanon is one of the key conditions for any agreement for Iran. Iran and the United States have also exchanged attacks, and President Trump has threatened to restart a full-scale conflict.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, everything seemed much easier when the United States and Israel launched a war against Iran. After years of attempts, he finally persuaded the US president to join him in attacking regional rival Iran, and launched a major attack on neighboring Lebanon, according to reports.
Both attacks marked rare moments of unity for both Israelis and politicians. They ignored the mounting death toll and rallied behind Netanyahu in support of the existential fight that prominent politicians and media voices have been calling inevitable for decades.
Three months later, with Israeli elections looming, the positions are very different. Rather than the quick victory that Netanyahu reportedly promised Trump, the US president found himself embroiled in the very kind of costly “forever wars” he campaigned against.
Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu are caught between the Lebanon war, which domestic viewers continue to crave, and U.S. allies who need a halt to the war to broker a desperately needed truce with Iran.
“He (Prime Minister Netanyahu) is in a huge predicament politically and diplomatically,” Aron Pincus, a former Israeli ambassador and consul general in New York, told Al Jazeera, outlining the political cost to Netanyahu of three “failed” wars. Gaza, where Hamas maintains control, Lebanon, where Hezbollah has not yet been eliminated despite the prime minister’s promises, and Iran.
“Diplomatically, Israel is isolated and the perception of Israel is negative,” Pincus said.
lebanon angle
The latest escalation between Iran and Israel was sparked by Israel’s attack on Lebanese capital Beirut, rather than Iran, on Sunday night.
Iran insists that any deal with the United States to end the regional conflict must include a ceasefire between Israel and the pro-Iranian group Hezbollah. At the same time, Iran reiterated its support for its Lebanese allies and called on Israel to withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon, highlighting the obstacles facing efforts to secure a broader U.S.-Iranian deal.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier this week that “this war will only end if it also ends in Lebanon.”
However, it may not be that simple. Israeli politicians have long cited both Iran and Hezbollah as fundamental threats to Israel’s security.
A poll conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute in April, shortly after the first cease-fire between Iran and the United States was announced, found that an overwhelming majority of Israelis support continuing their country’s war against Lebanon, regardless of the US position.
Past signs that Netanyahu may have prioritized concerns for the United States over the victories he promised for Israel have provided fresh ammunition to his political opponents.
In late May, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett harshly criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is preparing to take power himself. “The government is forcing us back into a despicable policy of containment and normalizing an intolerable and unacceptable situation,” Bennett said, adding that “Dahiyeh (the southern suburbs of Beirut) will tremble until security is restored to the north,” a clear threat to Beirut’s southern suburbs, which Israel considers Hezbollah’s stronghold.
“Israel is not a protectorate,” said Bennett’s ally Yair Lapid, referring to US influence over Israeli policy and stressing that “the responsibility for the safety of the Israeli people rests solely with the Israeli government.”
Aaron Bregman, a senior faculty member in the Department of War Studies at King’s College in London, said little of Netanyahu’s original pledge of “total victory” over Israel’s enemies remained, and that all of them were still alive.
He also referred to Israel’s past invasions of Lebanon, saying that “Lebanon itself has once again proven to be a trap for the Israelis,” all of which ended in withdrawal and defeat. “It will be difficult for Prime Minister Netanyahu to withdraw troops from Lebanon now,” he said, “and it will be even more difficult for Iran to bomb Beirut because it is likely to bomb Israel,” concluding that Israel is once again in a trap.
election
Polls in northern Israel, the region most at risk of attack from Lebanon, show a sharp decline in support for Netanyahu, while nationally, some polls show a broad political bloc calling itself simply “anti-Netanyahu” leading ahead of general elections scheduled for later this year.
“As far as elections go, he has no room to run for anything,” Pincus said of Netanyahu’s chances of winning the next vote, which must be held by the end of October. “Prime Minister Netanyahu failed on October 7, 2023 (the Hamas-led attack on Israel) despite appointing himself the ultimate anti-terrorism[leader]and he also failed on the attack on Iran despite having a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get the United States on his side,” Pincus said, adding that the corruption trial in which Netanyahu is embroiled also poses a threat to the Israeli prime minister.
“Most wars begin with a wave of popularity, promise generations of security, and then end up mired in quagmire and confusion,” Chatham House’s Yossi Mekelberg said of Israel’s current situation.
“Historically, Israel has been able to maintain its popularity for war only if it has fought short wars. Today, Israel is fighting on multiple fronts,” Mekelberg added, pointing to internal tensions caused by more than two and a half years of conflict in a society already divided by multiple wars, adding that little good can come from any of the fighting.
