The article argues that Israel’s fighting in southern Lebanon is increasingly disconnected from clear military purpose and could become a way to vent political frustration over the US-Iran deal. It says Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to project toughness to a base unwilling to accept Washington cutting a deal with Tehran, while Israeli strikes in Lebanon may end up angering the US, giving Iran ammunition to claim Israel is undermining a new regional order, and possibly costing Israel more than another day of combat.
The piece warns that if Donald Trump sees Israel as endangering an agreement he considers a personal achievement, he may offer Iran further concessions to save it. In that scenario, Israel would pay twice, first in casualties and attrition in Lebanon and then in a worse deal with Iran. It also says a public failure in the negotiations could have consequences in Gaza, the West Bank, weapons supply, freedom of action in Lebanon, and even Israel’s relationship with the current US administration.
To illustrate the danger, the article recalls Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the creation of the security zone, and the 18 years of fighting that followed until the withdrawal in 2000. What began as a defensive buffer became a trap, with each hill requiring another hill, each outpost needing protection, and every strike inviting a response. The author says Israel is now back on that same slope, despite using newer terms such as “security zone,” “yellow line,” and “forward defense.”
The current area between the international border and the yellow line is said to cover more than 600 square kilometers and about 60 villages. The text says the IDF is clearing the area with limited forces while Hezbollah remains active there, making every local clash a potential regional crisis. A senior security source is quoted saying, “Because of the elections Netanyahu cannot withdraw,” and that “because they put all their trust in Trump they are managing us and stopping us.”
The article concludes that holding a narrow line might be defensible if the goal is only to prevent raids, but a broader campaign to defeat Hezbollah would require a different operation, different resources, and a different political decision. Otherwise, it says, Israel is not advancing, but sinking into a new security zone with no clear end.
