Policy Assessment by Ameer Makhoul – Progress Center for Policies, London
On the first of June, US President Donald Trump announced the stabilisation of the ceasefire in Lebanon in its current form, confirming that both Israel and Hezbollah had agreed to abide by it and to refrain from attacking one another. He noted that he had spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that Israeli forces would pull back from their offensive on Beirut, and that aircraft en route to the city had been turned around. According to Lebanese sources, Hezbollah signalled its acceptance of the ceasefire in exchange for Israel refraining from bombing the southern suburbs of Beirut.
Analysis:
Trump’s announcement came at the height of a dangerous escalation that, had it not been halted in time, could have transformed into a full-scale Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon, turning the northern front into a launching pad for a far-reaching war striking deep into Israeli territory — while Lebanon, as both a people and a state, faced grave risks to its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In this context, Netanyahu posted a tweet asserting that he had informed Trump that Israel would resume strikes on Beirut if Hezbollah continued targeting Israeli cities and civilians, while indicating that the Israeli military would press on with its operations in southern Lebanon.
The days preceding the announcement were also marked by significant qualitative escalation. The Lebanese front had come to dominate Israeli public and political discourse, not least because it constitutes a grinding war of attrition — costly in both human and material terms. Public anger toward the Israeli government had intensified, with Israelis holding it responsible for the security failures.
For his part, following an inspection tour of the northern front on 31 May, Netanyahu insisted that the army was achieving major operational gains and that military resolution was underway. Israeli media focused on his statement that Israel was on a path to eliminating Hezbollah and expanding its operations in Lebanon — though this would “take time.” Defence Minister Israel Katz also threatened to bomb Beirut in response to any targeting of the city of Kiryat Shmona.
Intersecting Variables: Israeli Calculations Between Tehran and the North
Israeli media has been tracking Iranian warnings that continued escalation on the northern Lebanese front would derail any potential US–Iran agreement to end the war. This Iranian linkage reflects a clear strategy of deploying Hezbollah’s capabilities as a bargaining chip. The Israeli political establishment, for its part, has been careful to avoid acknowledging this linkage, fearing it would be read domestically as a sign of political defeat and a collapse of deterrence — since accepting it would imply that Israeli decision-making had become hostage to a negotiating process Tel Aviv does not control.
Beaufort Castle: Between Symbolism and Strategic Weight
The Israeli debate over Beaufort Castle continues: is it a strategic asset or merely a moral symbol? This debate traces back to 1982, when Begin and Sharon were caught off guard when 37 Palestinian fighters entrenched in the castle fought to the last man — an episode that Israeli military literature has classified as a failure. The castle was subsequently handed over to the South Lebanon Army militia, which collapsed in 2000, leaving Beaufort as a monument to the limited strategic impact of occupation in the absence of a political project.
The current assessment is that seizing the castle carries symbolic weight for two reasons: first, within the framework of the narrative war; and second, because Netanyahu is searching for any “victory image” to offset his failures. But the question remains: will Beaufort be different this time?
Israeli analyses suggest, however, that the real strategic objectives are the city of Nabatieh and the surrounding hills, alongside efforts to dismantle the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon — part of a broader scheme to liquidate the Palestinian cause, following the targeting of camps in Gaza and the West Bank and the persecution of UNRWA.
Conclusions:
1. Israeli Shock at Trump’s Announcement
Trump’s ceasefire declaration was met with widespread shock across Israeli official, security, and public circles alike. It entrenches a recurring pattern of Israeli sovereign decision-making being overridden — which weakens Netanyahu and is widely seen as an Iranian gain in the tug-of-war with Washington.
2. The Current Equation: Israeli Gains Amid Structural Fragility
Tying the ceasefire to a halt on bombing the southern suburbs suggests that the overall battlefield situation in Lebanon tilts in Israel’s favour, consolidating its military foothold in the south and effectively removing it from the scope of the ceasefire agreement indefinitely. While the previous ceasefire round had excluded the Bekaa Valley and Beirut from operations, the current formulation formally permits the continuation of operations in the south and reinforces Israeli military presence there. Yet this equation remains structurally fragile — particularly given that the previous round saw targeted strikes on the suburbs under the guise of “precision targeting.”
3. The Meaning of “A Victory That Takes Time”
Netanyahu’s declaration that Israeli resolution “will take time” carries serious domestic political risks, as it implicitly calls on Israelis to brace for a protracted and grinding war of attrition — with no signs of imminent military resolution and no political horizon in sight. Adding to the difficulty, Israeli public opinion has taken to calling this the “ceasefire war,” a pointed indication of eroding confidence in the government’s management of the conflict and its deference to American dictates.
4. The American Priority: Iran First, Lebanon Later
Trump’s statements make clear that the American administration is placing the Iranian file above all else, seeking to close it before turning its attention to the Lebanese file — which is gaining steadily in American regional priorities. Washington stands behind the Lebanese–Israeli negotiations and steers them, and will not leave the reins in Netanyahu’s hands.
5. Netanyahu’s Electoral Calculations
Netanyahu appears to be accumulating mounting political and electoral losses as a result of his bet on the Lebanese front — a front that is not amenable to military resolution. The Trump administration may, in fact, have an interest in this outcome, seeking to engineer Israel’s domestic political landscape in ways that serve its own strategic priorities rather than Netanyahu’s personal calculations.
6. The Erasure of Lebanese Sovereignty from the Equation
It is striking that the vast majority of American and Iranian statements alike make no reference, near or far, to the sovereignty of the Lebanese state — revealing an outlook that may effectively exclude Lebanon from the decision-making equation regarding its own future.
