Iran halted strikes after Trump intervened, but Netanyahu pressed ahead with direct attacks on Iranian military and oil facilities; Israel clashed with Washington over its right to strike Lebanon; Trump's pre-World Cup end-of-war push now in doubt

US President Donald Trump (right) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [Getty Images]
US President Donald Trump (right) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [Getty Images]

As Donald Trump pushes to finalize an end-of-war deal with Iran, Israel's decision to press ahead with direct strikes on Iranian territory is opening cracks in Washington's Middle East strategy. Trump publicly called for restraint, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu struck Iran anyway — injecting a new and volatile variable into US-Iran peace negotiations.

Reuters reported Sunday that Israel's recent limited strikes on Iran were intended to send Washington a message: that Israel's interests cannot be sidelined in any negotiated settlement. The strikes came after Iran launched missiles at Israel in retaliation for Israeli airstrikes on the Dahiyeh district in southern Beirut, Lebanon.

Trump immediately demanded both sides stand down. He posted on social media that "Israel and Iran must stop firing immediately," and subsequently spoke directly with Netanyahu by phone. During that call, Trump warned Netanyahu that he would "be left alone" if he was "not careful," according to Axios.

Iran declared a halt to its operations shortly after Trump's intervention. The Iranian military said in a statement that it was ending its operation, but warned it would respond more forcefully if Israel launched further attacks.

Israel, however, showed no sign of backing down. Frustration has been growing within Israel that Washington has been sidelining it while conducting direct negotiations with Tehran, according to reports. Trump has limited Israel's role since the conflict began, pursuing talks with Iran independently.

Netanyahu had, in fact, canceled a planned strike on Beirut at Trump's request. That episode fueled criticism within Israel that the United States was constraining its military options to advance the negotiations.

Analysts say that same frustration drove Israel's decision to carry out the latest strikes.

According to Reuters, Netanyahu convened a meeting of senior security and defense officials before ordering the strikes to discuss the objectives of a short-term military operation. A central issue was ensuring that Israel retains the right to strike Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and maintain a military presence there, even if a US-Iran agreement is eventually reached.

An Israeli defense official told Reuters that Israel could not accept a situation in which Iran's attacks on Israel were considered a legitimate response to Israeli operations in Lebanon.

Israel has also made clear it will not retreat on Lebanon. Defense Minister Israel Katz said Sunday that "if the northern region is attacked, Dahiyeh will be attacked," adding that Israel would continue military operations against Hezbollah.

Dahiyeh is a Hezbollah stronghold and the area whose targeting by Israel triggered Iran's missile strikes. Katz warned that "any attempt to link Lebanon and Iran in order to attack Israel will face a strong military response."

Experts say the episode reveals a subtle rift between the United States and Israel.

Danny Orbach, a military historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said Israel was trying to demonstrate "that the US cannot pursue a final agreement with Iran while ignoring Israel's interests," adding that Israel sought to prove "it can disrupt the negotiating framework whenever it deems necessary."

The situation puts Trump in an awkward position.

In a recent Fox News interview, Trump expressed confidence that a deal could be reached within eight to ten days. There is also speculation that he is aiming to sign an end-of-war memorandum of understanding before the North and Central America World Cup kicks off in the United States.

But the renewed armed conflict between Iran and Israel has cast fresh uncertainty over those plans. Particularly, Iran has made a Lebanon truce a precondition for any broader end-of-war deal, meaning Israel's unilateral actions could unravel the entire negotiating framework.

Yehoshua Kaliski, a researcher at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, said Israel could strike Iran on its own but faced limits in sustaining a prolonged military campaign. "Ultimately, Israel needs US support in terms of ammunition and air defense systems," he said.


sjy@heraldcorp.com