The drive for territorial growth stems from specific geographical challenges faced by Israel right from its founding, along with questions about the legitimacy of its establishment and resulting feelings of insecurity. Initially, the nation had a very limited width—only around 15 kilometers (about nine miles)—between the coastal region and the West Bank, particularly near Tulkarm and Netanya. This area became a major weakness strategically; in wartime, an aggressive force might potentially divide the country using armored units and defeat it piece by piece. From that moment onward, Israel has made significant efforts to gain essential strategic distance to prevent such life-threatening scenarios. The vision of a larger Israel intensified this push even more. As a result, it embarked on an expansive policy aimed at building up strategic space, defensive buffers, and secure borders, driven by two main motivations: safety concerns and the idea of expanding territory under Israeli control. For this purpose, it set up unauthorized colonies in the West Bank, entered Gaza, took over the Golan Heights and Mount Hermon in Syria, and currently advancing deeply into south Lebanon to counter potential strikes by Hezbollah against northern Israeli communities. Disturbingly, it keeps removing people from those regions!
Currently, its relentless hostility towards southern Lebanon is undermining every bilateral and global initiative aimed at achieving a peaceful and satisfactory resolution to the conflict with Iran.
The ongoing conflict led by the U.S.-Israel alliance against Iran remains undeterred even though President Trump repeatedly claimed that "a peace agreement with Iran is just around the corner," or similar statements. Moreover, there exists a significant gap in how the United States and Iran define the concept of a "ceasefire." While the U.S. views it as a mutual arrangement solely involving itself and Iran, Iran perceives it as nothing short of a comprehensive "regional peace initiative" — notably encompassing Lebanon. These critical differences in interpreting the ceasefire as either a limited truce or a broader regional peace strategy, along with Israel’s aggressive actions and hostility in Southern Lebanon, represent major obstacles to achieving lasting peace in the Middle East. To add complexity, there appears to be a fundamental mismatch in national priorities between Israel and the U.S. regarding concluding their shared offensive against Iran. President Trump believes he has invested substantial political, diplomatic, economic, and military resources into this largely ineffective, Israel-driven operation and wishes to conclude it quickly. He shows determination to minimize damage. In addition, he is strongly reluctant toward launching a land invasion since such action could lead to an endless war, ultimately harming his own political standing, that of his party, the American economy, and strategic interests across the globe. However, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel may hold different perspectives.
Additionally, both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump possess dual motivations—strategic and internal political—that they must take into account as they work towards what appear to be increasingly separate goals during these supposed last phases of the conflict with Iran. Domestically, both leaders face contradictory interests regarding the ongoing nature of this warfare. Each country will hold elections within the coming months. An extended conflict, particularly in Lebanon, could benefit Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political standing and future at home. Notably, he is dealing with legal issues that may result in imprisonment unless he maintains continuous involvement in conflicts across various regions, thereby avoiding accountability. Conversely, President Trump is approaching midterm elections scheduled for November 2026 and needs to establish favorable conditions politically, economically, geopolitically, and strategically to support his party's prospects. Achieving success against Iran, securing an agreement that dismantles its nuclear, missile, and drone capabilities, ensuring unimpeded global passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and effectively eliminating existential dangers to Israel would represent the least he hopes to demonstrate to the American public concerning his military efforts. However, he has yet to meet many of his previously stated strategic goals, and complications continue to arise due to Israel's aggressive and persistent entry into Southern Lebanon. It comes as no surprise that Iran now insists on stopping fighting in Lebanon as a fundamental condition before engaging in substantial negotiations with the United States.
Assuming that President Trump is postponing the peace initiative to allow Israel more time to accomplish its strategic goals in Lebanon prior to seriously engaging in negotiations with Iran would be extremely controversial. Israel’s main aims in southern Lebanon involve establishing a secure buffer zone along northern Israel, as well as eliminating, dismantling, disarming, demobilizing, and dispersing all elements of Hezbollah. Yet, over recent years, these objectives have not been achieved and seem even less attainable today. Still, if such an outcome were somehow realized, it could permanently derail the peace talks. Iran would certainly reject this development, actively interfere, and President Trump might find himself with very little success from what was essentially a fruitless military campaign against Iran. This situation places the conflict and attempts at resolution at a critical impasse, where both parties—the U.S. and Israel—have opposing and contradictory priorities. Israel's reckless actions have effectively led both sides into a dead-end strategically, leaving them without feasible alternatives, while Iran remains patient, waiting for this powerful long-standing partnership to break down completely.
Among the two—President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu—one will ultimately have to yield, which would come at a significant price, both politically within their own country and across international relations. Does President Trump genuinely lack the ability to enforce his authority over Prime Minister Netanyahu, or are they involved in what might become yet another shocking, grim spectacle on the global stage?
Supplied by SyndiGate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).