The Trump administration’s interim agreement with Iran has created a new point of friction with Israel, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resists pressure to withdraw Israeli forces from southern Lebanon without guarantees that Hezbollah is disarmed.
By yourNEWS Media Staff
A dispute over southern Lebanon has emerged as one of the first major tests of President Donald Trump’s new regional framework with Iran, placing Washington and Jerusalem at odds over Israel’s postwar security posture along its northern border.
Israeli officials say Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is negotiating with the Trump administration over whether Israeli troops will remain in parts of southern Lebanon seized during the recent war against Hezbollah. The issue has become more urgent after the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding included language affirming Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Two Israeli officials told Reuters that talks with the administration are underway, with one senior official describing them as “stubborn negotiations.”
Israel’s position is that its forces should remain south of Lebanon’s Litani River until Hezbollah is disarmed and no longer capable of attacking northern Israel. Israeli officials argue the area is essential to preventing the Iran-backed group from rebuilding its military infrastructure near the border.
Hezbollah began attacks on Israel on March 2 in support of Iran, after which Israel expanded air and ground operations in southern Lebanon. Israeli forces targeted Hezbollah positions, weapons sites and military networks during the campaign.
The southern Lebanon deployment is part of a broader Israeli effort to maintain security zones near hostile territory. Netanyahu has also resisted calls for Israeli withdrawals from parts of Gaza and Syria, arguing that buffer areas are necessary to prevent future attacks.
The Lebanon dispute follows Trump’s surprise shift toward diplomacy with Tehran. The president has promoted the interim agreement as a step toward a broader settlement that could include Iranian nuclear concessions, sanctions relief and regional de-escalation.
Many Israeli officials view the agreement differently. They see it as a strategic setback that ended military pressure on Iran before Israel achieved the “total victory” Netanyahu had promised against Tehran and its regional proxies.
The process has also raised concerns inside Israel about how much influence Jerusalem had over the final terms. Axios reported that Israeli officials did not receive the final text before the agreement was announced. A U.S. official acknowledged that Netanyahu may not have seen the final version, though the White House has said Israel was kept informed throughout the talks.
Trump publicly addressed the relationship at the G7 summit while praising Netanyahu but also making clear Washington’s leverage.
“Bibi is a good man. He gets a little excited sometimes. But we have an amazing partnership. We are the big partner and he is the very small partner,” Trump said.
The remark came after reports that Trump privately criticized Netanyahu over an Israeli strike in Beirut that nearly disrupted the Iran negotiations.
Trump later confirmed that Lebanon remains a point of disagreement.
“We have a little dispute about Lebanon,” Trump told reporters.
The disagreement is one of the clearest public divisions between Trump and Netanyahu since Trump returned to office.
Netanyahu is also facing a complicated regional and political environment. Arab Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates, have largely welcomed the U.S.-Iran framework. In the United States, Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators who usually support Israel have been cautious about criticizing an agreement backed personally by Trump.
That has left Israeli officials largely expressing concern through anonymous briefings rather than direct public criticism of the White House.
Inside Israel, some pro-Netanyahu media outlets have begun criticizing members of Trump’s team, reflecting growing frustration among Netanyahu’s allies over the direction of U.S. policy.
The Lebanon provisions could determine whether the disagreement deepens. The memorandum reportedly anticipates that any final regional settlement would include an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. Israeli officials contend that Israel cannot be expected to leave unless Hezbollah is neutralized.
One Israeli official told Reuters the outcome may depend on whether Trump chooses to pressure Israel if it refuses to comply with the framework.
The White House has sought to reassure Israel that any ceasefire or withdrawal arrangement would not leave the country exposed. Administration officials have said Israel would retain the right to respond if Hezbollah renews attacks.
U.S. officials also hope the 60-day negotiating period created by the Iran memorandum can be used to pursue a broader Israel-Lebanon political arrangement. Such a deal, they argue, could allow Israeli forces to leave southern Lebanon without appearing to concede territory to Hezbollah.
For now, the Iran agreement has shifted the diplomatic focus from Tehran to Lebanon, where Israel’s demand for a security buffer is colliding with Trump’s attempt to produce a wider regional de-escalation.
The outcome of the talks may shape not only Israel’s northern border policy, but also the durability of Trump’s broader Middle East strategy.
Original article
Comments