Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu views a potential peace agreement with Iran that allows the Islamic Republic to persist and rebuild as an existential threat. Analysts suggest this underlying concern is the primary driver behind Israel’s recent rapid escalation of attacks on Lebanon. The military actions are reportedly designed to disrupt delicate peace negotiations, a strategy that appeared to yield results when Iran announced it was suspending talks with the United States on Monday.
According to Iran’s Tasnim news agency, the Iranian negotiating team is halting discussions and the exchange of texts through mediators. This decision was attributed to the ongoing “crimes” by Israel in Lebanon, which Iran considers a violation of ceasefire preconditions. However, shortly after the intensified strikes on Lebanon, Donald Trump reportedly intervened. A phone call between Trump and Netanyahu is said to have persuaded, or directed, the Israeli prime minister to cease the latest offensive, placing Netanyahu in a precarious position.
Netanyahu’s Long-Standing Opposition to Tehran
Netanyahu has built a significant portion of his political career and public image on a platform of strong opposition to Iran. When Israeli forces initiated strikes on Iran in late February, the action was widely supported by the Israeli public. Many believed that “Mr. Iran,” as Netanyahu is known, was on the verge of fulfilling his long-standing promise to dismantle the Islamic Republic. With the backing of the U.S. military and its president, the expectation was that this objective was within reach.
More than three months later, the landscape has shifted. In Gaza, Hamas, considered an Iranian proxy, has been significantly weakened, and Hezbollah’s military capacity in Lebanon is reportedly diminished compared to its former strength. Within Iran itself, substantial losses have been sustained by its leadership, and its economy and military infrastructure have suffered setbacks potentially lasting years. Some observers speculate that internal pressures and contradictions could lead to the collapse of the current Iranian regime.
Domestic Pressures and Election Concerns
However, such a scenario may not align with Netanyahu’s immediate political needs. Facing an election in October, the lack of a decisive victory in toppling Iran’s leadership and establishing what Israelis term a “new reality” is reportedly generating widespread apprehension within Israel. Media coverage in Israel has been filled with discussions of this perceived failure.
David Horovitz, founding editor of The Times of Israel and generally considered a moderate voice, wrote recently that accepting the terms of a proposed ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran would mark the war as an “epochal failure.” He further stated that Israel’s leadership and public, across the political spectrum, view the Islamic Republic as a direct and existential threat. Horovitz quoted, “[It’s] a regime that has to be removed for the sake of the Iranian people, the region, and the free world, but first and foremost, for the survivability of Israel.” This sentiment mirrors Netanyahu’s long-held political stance, which he must now navigate in the upcoming election.
Provoking Iran to Derail Peace Talks
reports two weeks prior indicated that Netanyahu had attempted to persuade Trump to continue the conflict and reject any potential deal, a conversation reportedly ending in significant disagreement. One U.S. source, briefing Axios, described Netanyahu as being highly agitated following the call. Having failed to convince Trump to abandon a peace agreement, Netanyahu is now reportedly employing a strategy of provoking Iran into abandoning the talks by escalating actions in Lebanon.
Iran had outlined a framework for negotiations that included securing a ceasefire in Lebanon as a prerequisite for discussing other issues, such as its nuclear program, frozen assets, and withdrawal from the Strait of Hormuz. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator, stated on Monday that the escalation of actions in Lebanon by what he termed the “genocidal Zionist regime” served as clear evidence of the U.S. not complying with the ceasefire.
Trump’s Intervention and International Reactions
Netanyahu’s actions are seen as a high-stakes gamble, but he is not alone in attempting to undermine the proposed peace deal. His efforts were reportedly checked by Trump on Monday night, leading to embarrassment domestically. Trump announced on Truth Social, following what he described as a “very productive” call with Netanyahu, that there would be no troops sent to Beirut and that any personnel en route had been recalled.
Hardline factions within Iran have already threatened to oust Prime Minister Masoud Pezeshkian’s government if it accepts what they perceive as a weak deal. For these groups, the bombing of Lebanon may serve as justification, offering proof that Iran has compromised its regional allies in exchange for concessions from the U.S. Netanyahu may also face opposition from Trump’s circle. Figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, and even son-in-law Jared Kushner have reportedly been subjected to negative portrayals in Israeli media, depicted as naive, compromised, or even a danger to Israel’s security.
This strategy could prove counterproductive. Similar to Iran, Trump aims to finalize a deal to end the war while projecting an image of strength. Trump previously expressed frustration with Israeli actions during the 12-day conflict with Iran last June. When Netanyahu attempted to derail that deal with last-minute strikes, Trump publicly ordered a cessation, stating that Israel and Iran and its proxies were engaged in actions without clear direction. While the language used this time was reportedly more subdued, the underlying message appears consistent: a desire to conclude the current hostilities.
