After Trump’s announcement.. Has Netanyahu lost the escalation card in the southern suburbs? | news

US President Donald Trump announced that he had a “fruitful” call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which resulted in an understanding that prevents the targeting of Beirut and establishes a mutual calm between Israel and Hezbollah.

Trump confirmed – through his “Truth Social” platform – that Israel “will not attack Hezbollah, and the party will not attack Israel,” revealing indirect communication with the party through “high-level representatives” that ended in an agreement on a ceasefire. Netanyahu was also quoted as confirming that no forces were being sent to Beirut, noting that any forces that were on their way had “already been sent back.”

These statements coincided with data reported by Reuters from two Israeli sources, stating that Tel Aviv was awaiting final approval from the US President before carrying out any military operation in the southern suburb of Beirut, which reinforces the hypothesis of Washington’s decisive role in avoiding escalation.

The Lebanese position

For its part, the Lebanese Embassy in Washington reported that Lebanese President Joseph Aoun informed Hezbollah of the results of the ongoing discussions regarding the truce.

She added that the US President called the Lebanese Ambassador to Washington, Nada Moawad, and informed her that he had obtained the approval of the Israeli Prime Minister for the proposed arrangement.

According to the embassy, ​​the arrangement stipulates that Israeli strikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut will stop in exchange for Hezbollah refraining from attacking Israel.

A source in the Lebanese Parliament Presidency reported that Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri informed President Joseph Aoun and the American Ambassador of Hezbollah’s commitment to a comprehensive and mutual ceasefire, on the condition that Israel adheres to the same.

The source confirmed that Berri “guarantees the party’s commitment if Israel commits,” noting that the Israeli response – so far – has come through escalation, which reinforces the Lebanese conviction that Tel Aviv “does not want a comprehensive ceasefire,” and that what is being proposed is only a partial calm.

Later, the Lebanese Embassy in Washington said that the Lebanese authorities had received confirmation of Hezbollah’s approval of the American proposal for a mutual cessation of attacks.

Delayed strike?

On the ground, the Israeli army had issued an evacuation warning to the residents of the southern suburb, following a joint announcement by Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yisrael Katz to launch strikes there, but this path seemed to have stopped suddenly.

After Trump’s announcement, Netanyahu came out to clarify – in posts on the “X” platform – his vision for this understanding, stressing that Israel would launch an attack on what he described as terrorist targets in Beirut if Hezbollah did not stop attacking Israeli towns.

He also declared without ambiguity that the Israeli army “will continue its operations as planned in southern Lebanon,” which has already been monitored on the ground, with raids continuing on several areas in the south, despite Trump’s talk about a ceasefire.

However, Netanyahu’s refusal to continue attacking Beirut raised fundamental questions about the scope of the Israeli decision and the limits of Washington’s influence on it, and talk about “distribution of roles” sometimes between Tel Aviv and Washington.

American guardianship?

The American announcement sparked angry reactions within Israel, including sharp criticism of Netanyahu and calls to continue strikes on Beirut.

Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz said, “Washington will not prevent us from defending the towns of the north, and we will reach wherever it takes in Lebanon.”

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir called on the Prime Minister to reject American pressure, considering that “it is time to tell Trump: No,” and demanding that the Israeli army be freed to launch a “decisive strike and restore security to the north.”

Opposition leaders also launched a scathing attack on Netanyahu, with opposition leader Yair Lapid describing Israel as “a state completely subject to guardianship,” while Avigdor Lieberman considered Netanyahu “not a prime minister but a puppet.”

Dissatisfaction with this retreat was raised even within pro-Netanyahu circles, as Channel 14 reported residents of northern Israel of their anger at Trump’s announcement, which was considered a restriction on freedom of military action.

Negotiating messages

The Israeli threat to target the southern suburb was not just a field escalation, but rather carried strategic dimensions linked to broader negotiating paths, according to opinions and analyses.

The escalation comes within two main tracks: negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, mediated by America, and the American-Iranian negotiating track to end the war in the Middle East.

In this context, Netanyahu seemed to be seeking to use “field pressure diplomacy” to raise the ceiling of his conditions, by threatening to attack Beirut and impose new field facts that would reshuffle the cards.

The issuance of the escalation decision at the political level – and not just the military level – reflected a desire to send multiple messages to the Israeli interior, to Washington, and perhaps to regional parties.

Relationship test

The course of events raises questions about the nature of coordination between Tel Aviv and Washington, as the timing of the Israeli announcement – and then the rapid American move to contain it – may suggest that Netanyahu may be testing the limits of the American position, or seeking to impose a fait accompli.

However, the decisive American intervention – according to indicators – reset the pace and forced Israel to take a step back, which reflects Tel Aviv’s continued dependence on American political cover in its major decisions.

The inclusion of the southern suburbs in the goal bank meant a deeper shift in the rules of engagement, as it moved the confrontation from the border to the Lebanese interior, and broke red lines that had been in place for weeks.

However, this transformation was not complete, as it appears that the American intervention temporarily redrawn these lines and prevented a slide towards a broader confrontation.

Profit and loss accounts

According to military estimates, the Israeli escalation was driven by three main factors:

• Investing in “field superiority” in southern Lebanon.
• Response to the expansion of Hezbollah attacks.
• Transferring pressure to the Lebanese state by threatening Beirut.

But on the other hand, this approach may carry adverse risks for Israel, most notably:

• Strengthening Hezbollah’s position internally by perpetuating the narrative of confrontation.
• Weakening the official Lebanese negotiating position instead of putting pressure on it.
• Expanding the scope of the conflict to a point that is difficult to contain.

In light of all of the above, it seems that the escalation card in the southern suburbs – which Netanyahu waved – faced an American ceiling, which limited its ability to turn into military action.

Although Israel still has tools for field pressure, their use has become more conditional than ever on Washington’s calculations, which may weaken Netanyahu’s margin for political and military maneuvering.