Some interpret the temporary ceasefire imposed on Israel in Lebanon as a capitulation, another major failure by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and further proof that, in the end, the United States dictates the outcome. But beneath the surface, the picture is far more complex, and not entirely negative. There are tactical gains that, if managed correctly, could translate into strategic achievements.
On the face of it, Israel is entering this ceasefire under far better conditions than it did a month and a half ago, before the fighting began on March 2, when Hezbollah launched attacks seeking revenge for the killing of Ali Khamenei and dragged Lebanon into a bloody conflict. Since then, Israel has secured two key tactical gains: taking control of the anti-tank missile line and establishing a presence roughly 10 kilometers inside Lebanese territory.
The area in southern Lebanon is largely devoid of residents, aside from Christian villages. Hezbollah demanded, as a condition for a ceasefire, that Israel withdraw to the five positions it held before the previous truce collapsed. That request was rejected, and Israel remains in those positions for now, retaining the right to self-defense and the ability to act against emerging threats.
Since the previous ceasefire was violated and before the latest round of fighting, Israel killed 500 Hezbollah operatives as part of its so-called “mowing the grass” policy, which is expected to continue. If threats emerge during the temporary ceasefire — which is likely to be extended — Israel will be able to respond.
Destruction of Hezbollah infrastructure in Bint Jbeil
(Video: IDF Spokesperson)
In effect, Israel has created two security belts: one along the missile line and another along the Litani River, in an area largely cleared of residents. Any return of civilians would occur under Israeli conditions. Hezbollah’s stronghold in Bint Jbeil has also been encircled and subdued, making it easier to dismantle the organization in southern Lebanon. Israel is, in effect, making the job easier for the Lebanese government moving forward.
Kushner-Witkoff camp prevails
Israel had opposed a ceasefire and sought to continue striking Hezbollah. Its primary objective was to sever any link between Iran and Lebanon: a ceasefire with Iran, but continued fighting against Hezbollah. The Iranians recognized their leverage and conditioned negotiations with the United States on ending the war in Lebanon, understanding that abandoning their main proxy now would undermine its future utility — not to mention the message it would send to the Houthi rebels in Yemen and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq.
U.S. President Donald Trump understood this and began pressing Netanyahu to end the fighting in Lebanon. Netanyahu resisted. A power struggle unfolded between him and what is described as the “Kushner-Witkoff camp,” with the U.S. president’s advisers ultimately prevailing. Still, Israel did secure one achievement from Washington: according to senior Israeli officials, the United States has committed to advancing the disarmament of Hezbollah under American supervision. Trump has asked Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine to take a leading role in the effort.
Netanyahu, for his part, insisted that any ceasefire be on Israel’s terms — namely, no withdrawal. The Israel Defense Forces remain along the anti-tank missile line and retain freedom of action for self-defense. Trump attempted to arrange a call between Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, but Aoun refused, understanding that agreeing to such a call without a ceasefire in place would make him a target of domestic ridicule.
Trump then concluded that a ceasefire had to come first, even if temporary. Rather than a phone call, he plans to bring the two leaders together at the White House — a move that would also offer stronger optics. Netanyahu agreed. During a cabinet call, he was asked when such a meeting would take place and said no date had been set. Trump has suggested it could happen within one to two weeks, or even within several days.
Stopping wars at all costs
From Netanyahu’s perspective, he agreed to accept the ceasefire in Lebanon to avoid being blamed for derailing U.S.-Iran negotiations, which are critical for Israel. While linking Iran and Hezbollah poses challenges, Netanyahu effectively “sacrificed a pawn to protect the queen” — prioritizing the Iranian nuclear issue.
Trump has assured Netanyahu that he intends to take a hard line with Iran on its nuclear program. He has said he will not compromise on removing enriched uranium stockpiles and has even signaled willingness to forgo a “sunset clause,” insisting Iran should never be allowed to enrich uranium. If realized, this would represent a major achievement for Israel — effectively dismantling Iran’s nuclear program.
5 View gallery
Trump pressed, Netanyahu agreed
(Photo: JOE RAEDLE / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / AFP)
Netanyahu told ministers that the primary objective is to “finish” Iran’s nuclear program. If Trump succeeds and creates a framework that also leads to Hezbollah’s disarmament, Netanyahu argued, there would be little reason to continue fighting while holding advantageous positions. Maintaining the current situation allows Israel to test whether it can achieve its broader goals — a “win-win” scenario, in his view.
Netanyahu aligned with Trump after concluding that he would secure what he wanted on Iran. Moreover, rejecting Trump outright was not seen as a viable option. Just as Trump halted previous Israeli military operations, he has now pushed to stop the war in Lebanon. When Trump moves to end conflicts, he does so decisively.
How to explain it: a promise of fundamental change
Netanyahu now faces the challenge of explaining the move to residents of northern Israel, many of whom feel they have once again been abandoned and that promises to dismantle Hezbollah have been forgotten.
In a recorded statement released two hours after Trump’s announcement, Netanyahu said: “We have an opportunity to reach a historic peace agreement with Lebanon. President Trump intends to invite me and the Lebanese president to advance this effort. This opportunity exists because since the war we have fundamentally changed the balance of power in Lebanon. We activated the pagers, destroyed the massive stockpile of 150,000 rockets and missiles that Hassan Nasrallah prepared to devastate Israel’s cities, and eliminated Nasrallah. This shift has led to calls from Lebanon in recent weeks to hold direct peace talks — something that has not happened in over 40 years. I responded to this and agreed to a pause — or more precisely, a temporary 10-day ceasefire — to try to advance the agreement we began discussing during ambassador-level meetings in Washington.”
5 View gallery
Netanyahu pledged to also address Iran’s ballistic missiles
(Photo: Israel Fire and Rescue Services)
He added: “We have two fundamental demands in these talks: first, the disarmament of Hezbollah; second, a sustainable peace agreement — peace through strength. To achieve the ceasefire, Hezbollah insisted on two conditions: that Israel withdraw completely to the international border, and a ‘quiet for quiet’ arrangement. I agreed to neither, and indeed neither condition is being met. We remain in Lebanon in an expanded security zone — not the five points held before the recent operation, but a continuous 10-kilometer-wide belt from the coast to Mount Dov and the approaches to Mount Hermon, up to the Syrian border. This allows us to prevent incursions into our communities and stop direct anti-tank fire. Our communities are now protected from these threats. There are still challenges, including remaining rocket stockpiles, which we will address as part of advancing a broader security and peace arrangement.”
Addressing Iran, Netanyahu said: “In recent days, I spoke with President Trump, who told me he is determined to continue both the naval blockade and efforts to dismantle Iran’s remaining nuclear capabilities. He will not give up on this. He believes he can remove this threat once and for all, building on what we have already achieved together. We will also address the missile threat and enrichment capabilities. I will not elaborate, but these are two very significant moves that could fundamentally change our security and diplomatic situation for years to come.”