Policy Assessment – Progress Center for Policies, London
Introduction
In a notable development, US President Donald Trump moved decisively against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — through a phone call that sparked widespread controversy — with the aim of halting extensive attacks that Israel had prepared against the southern suburbs of Beirut after issuing evacuation orders to residents. Leaks surrounding this call, alongside Trump’s statements about communicating with Hezbollah through intermediaries, opened the door to questions about the true motives behind this intervention, its circumstances, and the parties involved in shaping it.
The Facts
On 1 May 2026, Trump announced that Israel and Hezbollah had reached a ceasefire, revealing an indirect channel he had maintained with the group through intermediaries. The announcement came to halt a serious escalation that Israel was preparing to carry out in the Dahiyeh, following its forces’ successful ground incursion beyond the Litani River.
Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that Netanyahu had committed, during a call Trump described as “very fruitful,” to not advancing forces toward Beirut, affirming that any units that had been en route had already turned back, and that a “very good” communication had been conducted with Hezbollah through intermediaries, concluding with the group’s agreement to halt all firing operations.
Axios, however, reported — citing American officials and a third source familiar with the call’s contents — that Trump had called Netanyahu “crazy” and criticised him for failing to appreciate American support.
On 30 May, Trump convened his national security team in the White House Situation Room, with Secretary of State Rubio and Vice President JD Vance in attendance, to address the Iranian file. Trump had announced the previous day that the purpose was to “make a final decision.” A White House official stated that the meeting lasted approximately two hours, reaffirming that Trump would not sign any agreement unless it served American interests and met his red lines — chief among them that Iran must not possess a nuclear weapon under any circumstances.
Analysts read the absence of any decision following the meeting as a positive signal, given that Trump refrained from commenting and raised no objection to or rejection of the Iranian proposal, suggesting that the President and his team had concluded that Tehran had offered concessions that warranted a meeting of that length.
On 31 May, Trump issued no definitive decision, stating only that he had introduced modifications to the Iranian proposal and returned it to Tehran without directing any criticism at its substance, reiterating that “Iran wants to reach a deal.”
Pakistani sources indicate that Tehran had already taken the initiative on concessions addressing Trump’s core demand — preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb — by accepting measures relating to uranium enrichment and the fate of highly enriched stockpiles, while Washington reciprocated with concessions regarding the release of frozen assets, the easing of sanctions, and the lifting of blockades on Iranian ports.
Sources suggest that finalising the agreement requires careful wording to present it as a “victory” that can be marketed domestically to both American and Iranian audiences alike, and that Trump had requested linguistic adjustments to highlight a clear Iranian position that would allow him to “sell” the agreement to the American public and the world as an achievement that justified the confrontation. These sources add that Iran is insisting on including a clause on halting the Israeli war in Lebanon within the text of the agreement, framing it as a domestic necessity through which it affirms it has not abandoned its regional proxies.
Analysis
Diplomatic sources suggest that Trump’s personal intervention to stop the anticipated attack on the southern suburbs of Beirut rested on a combination of interrelated factors:
First — Securing a Lebanon war-halt clause within the Iran agreement: Trump is keen to remove any obstacle that might derail the nuclear understanding, and the war on Lebanon was among the most prominent of those obstacles. Halting the escalation against the Dahiyeh paves the way for incorporating a cessation of the Lebanon war as a clause in the anticipated agreement, thereby meeting a weighty Iranian domestic demand.
Second — Demonstrating that Washington alone can halt the war: Through this move, Trump sends Tehran a message that the United States is the only party capable of reining in the devastating Israeli war against one of Iran’s proxies and its support base, and that reaching an understanding with Washington is the sole path to moderating Israeli conduct.
Third — Reminding Israel and Netanyahu of the limits of their latitude: Trump reaffirms to Israel — and to Netanyahu specifically — that the space available for military action is contingent on American will and on his personal decision in both the Iranian and Lebanese files. It is a firm message that Washington is the one that charts the course of the conflict and sets its ceiling.
Fourth — Salvaging the direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiating track: The fourth round of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel had been scheduled for 2–3 May 2026 in Washington. The American Embassy in Beirut conveyed that Lebanon was leaning toward suspending them, as holding them amid a major military operation against the Dahiyeh was untenable. Trump’s intervention thus rescued these negotiations and kept the door open for their continuation.
Fifth — A convergence of regional efforts toward de-escalation: Trump’s move was not unilateral; it coincided with intensive diplomatic activity that included active Qatari mediation and communications from capitals such as Riyadh and Cairo — efforts that collectively succeeded in tempering the escalation and returning to rules of engagement that keep southern Lebanon as the theatre of operations without expanding them to encompass the capital.
Sixth — Laying the groundwork for a comprehensive ceasefire: There is a wager that the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations will yield a comprehensive ceasefire, potentially backed by the American-Iranian understanding that Trump hinted would be concluded the following week. Intersecting within this landscape are a set of shifts and constraints that the agreement will generate: Israel kept in line by American will, while the room for manoeuvre widens for regional states in engineering the new reality.
Conclusions
Trump’s intervention to halt the attack on Beirut and the southern suburbs reflected his renewed capacity to impose the American agenda decisively on Israel and on Netanyahu personally.
Washington’s leaking of Trump’s anger toward Netanyahu during the call is likely directed at the American domestic audience — particularly Republican figures supportive of Israel such as Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz — to affirm that Trump is the ultimate authority in managing the relationship with Israel and in defending American interests.
The leak also carries a message to the Israeli domestic arena at the height of the upcoming Knesset election campaign, conveying Trump’s frustration with Netanyahu and his failure to acknowledge that Trump shielded him from corruption prosecutions — leaving voters and the opposition with the impression that Trump is not necessarily Netanyahu’s unconditional backer.
Trump’s intervention to halt the escalation in Lebanon intersects with a potential clause in the American-Iranian agreement linking a cessation of the war in Lebanon to the conclusion of the deal with Iran — meeting a formal Iranian demand in exchange for formal demands from Trump relating to the wording of the text.
This intervention comes as a support to and a rescue of the direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, paving the way for a possible formal comprehensive ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel.
Finally, Trump’s intervention — alongside his team, Qatari mediation, and regional diplomatic communications — succeeded in de-escalating the situation and returning to rules of engagement that keep southern Lebanon as the theatre of military operations.
