Israel and Lebanon are the Key to Ending the Iran War

I have repeatedly written that Israel holds a veto over U.S. agreements with Iran regarding a resolution to the current war. This is because the memorandum of understanding that cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump signed with Iran requires a ceasefire in Lebanon. Israel currently has troops occupying large areas of southern Lebanon and can initiate hostilities at any time, throwing a wrench into the gears of the peace process. Last night, Israel appears to have done exactly that. As a result, negotiations between the U.S. and Iran that were supposed to start today have been postponed, and Iran has announced that the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed to shipping.

Part of the problem is that the MOU is not detailed when it comes to the ceasefire in Lebanon. Here is the full paragraph of the MOU in which Lebanon is mentioned:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war by signing this M.O.U. declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.

Israel has said that the MOU does not apply to it and, therefore, it is free to continue its military operations in Lebanon. However, Trump has made it clear that he is upset with Israel's actions to combat Hezbollah and is pressuring Israel to restrain itself. Iran, for its part, is making the situation in Lebanon a litmus test of the MOU. The meaning of the MOU with regard to Lebanon is subject to various interpretations. Israel has troops in Lebanon currently occupying recently established bases. Does maintaining those military installations constitute a "military operation?" Certainly Hezbollah and Iran think that it does. Equally clearly, Israel thinks it does not.

Last night, fighting between Israel and Hezbollah broke out and, as a result, Iran called off the initiation of the 60 days of talks on a final settlement that was supposed to begin today. Vice President and reply guy JD Vance cancelled his planned trip to Switzerland for those talks. Therefore, the situation in Lebanon has stopped the negotiations before they even got started. One could argue that this is exactly what Israel wanted to happen and that this was the exercising of its veto.

My understanding of last night's events is that Israel attempted to move forces north in the Ali al-Taher Hills area of southern Lebanon. If true, this is indisputably a "military operation" and prohibited by the terms of the MOU. Hezbollah attacked the Israeli units and killed 4 Israeli soldiers. As is its tendency, Israel's response was massively disproportionate. According to Iranian media in southern Lebanon, Israel leveled a residential building, used a drone to kill two men on a motorcycle, and launched at least 20 airstrikes on various towns throughout the south. The Times of Israel, relying on Lebanese sources, reports that at least 47 Lebanese were killed and over 97 wounded.

The lack of clarity in the MOU concerning expectations for Israel's forces in Lebanon is a real problem. The U.S. position appears to be that the Israeli troops can stay in Lebanon and defend themselves if they are attacked. The Israeli position is that the MOU doesn't apply to it and that it is free to attempt to destroy Hezbollah. The Iranian position, clarified this morning, is that Israel must withdraw its forces from Lebanon. As long as there is this sort of disagreement, events such as what happened last night will continue to occur.

The buck in this case stops with Trump. He is going to have to choose a side between Israel and Iran, and neither is a particularly good choice for him. Trump is clearly tired of the Iran war and would love to simply glorify himself in the limelight of a successful peace agreement. The Israelis are an unwanted threat to his goals. As such, Trump has been very critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and quite clear that he dislikes how Netanyahu has handled Hezbollah. Moreover, the same economic threats that Trump admitted were an impetus to the MOU still exist. With the opening of the Strait of Hormuz now dependent on the situation in Lebanon, it is not only the peace process but the world economy that is at risk. However, if Trump attempts to force Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, he will have to confront both Israeli and domestic U.S. opposition. Trump is forced to choose between a global economic meltdown, a political confrontation with Israel and its U.S. supporters, or an escalation of the military conflict with Iran.

Trump has already had to choose between escalating the conflict and agreeing to the humiliating terms of the MOU. Of course, he chose the MOU. Now, the conflict in Lebanon threatens the progress that the MOU represented. There is considerable logic to suggest that his best course of action is to demand an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Trump wants a ceasefire in Lebanon so that the peace process with Iran can continue. A ceasefire will likely not happen as long as Israeli forces are in Lebanon. Therefore, it is in Trump's interest to force an Israeli withdrawal.

However, Netanyahu and Trump have different goals. Netanyahu's goal is the destruction of Hezbollah. Netanyahu appears to have recognized that Israel is unlikely to defeat Hezbollah militarily and, therefore, has resorted to occupying and depopulating a large part of southern Lebanon to create a buffer zone between Hezbollah and northern Israel. But Netanyahu's objective directly threatens the peace talks between the U.S. and Iran. As a result Netanyahu's and Trump's goals are not reconcilable. Netanyahu appears to have almost total support across the Israeli political spectrum and not insignificant support in the United States. Challenging Netanyahu will not be easy for Trump.

If Israel were to withdraw from Lebanon, Hezbollah would be expected to observe a ceasefire. In theory, this would provide the security for northern Israel that Netanyahu claims to desire. In fact, however, Hezbollah would remain a threat. A loaded gun pointed at Israel, if you will. Addressing that issue is significantly more difficult. It is unlikely that Netanyahu is willing to live with that threat, and it is doubtful that he would survive politically if he were to accept it. One solution might be to include the extension of Lebanese government control throughout southern Lebanon and the disarmament of Hezbollah as a part of the U.S.-Iran talks that were supposed to commence today. That might be too intractable of an issue, however.

The bottom line is that Trump is caught between multiple rocks and hard places. All this when he would just rather build a ballroom, an arch, and get in some more rounds of golf. Netanyahu was key for getting Trump into the war against Iran, and now Netanyahu has a key role in getting Trump out of it. However, there is no indication that Netanyahu has any interest in playing such a role. To the contrary, Netanyahu's interests lie in an escalation of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, which would allow Netanyahu to have a free hand in Lebanon. Standing against that is the global economy that hinges on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.