Articles - Others - Date: 2026-04-08

By: Oraib Al Rantawi

The Israeli government did not swallow the ceasefire agreement between Washington and Tehran easily. Its prime minister is struggling to digest it, and, more importantly, to justify and promote it to his allies and friends, and beyond them, to Israeli public opinion. He now finds himself facing a torrent of accusations and criticism coming from all directions, threatening the image and stature he has carefully cultivated as the "King of Israel," and jeopardizing his — and his party’s and coalition’s — chances of winning the upcoming November elections. This also leaves the door wide open once again for him to face trial on charges of corruption, abuse of power, and negligence over October 7, as well as his failure to reap strategic gains from the destructive war he launched against Iran, with no strategic results to speak of.

 

Under these circumstances, Binyamin Netanyahu, whom many Israelis accuse of jumping from one war to another merely to remain in power, has decided to leap into a new misadventure, one as bloody and destructive as all his other wars and battles across various fronts. He has ordered his army to unleash hell on dozens of towns and villages across Lebanon, and to tear apart the heart of the capital, Beirut, even at the cost of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilian lives and the destruction of infrastructure, including homes and medical and social facilities. This is fine, so long as killing and destruction are pursued as ends in themselves, irrespective of any military or political objectives, as he has consistently demonstrated in Gaza, Lebanon, and, most recently, in Iran.

 

In explaining Netanyahu's outburst of madness in launching over 100 airstrikes in less than 10 minutes against Lebanon, there are, according to experts and observers (including the author of these lines), only two possible interpretations:

 

First: The man has decided to undermine Iran's approach of “linking the tracks” between Lebanon and Iran, which Tehran had succeeded in incorporating into the preliminary ceasefire agreement, based on the English, Persian, and Arabic texts published about the agreement, and as confirmed by the Pakistani prime minister, the main broker of the deal, who stated that the agreement includes Lebanon as well.

 

Second: Netanyahu has decided to inflict the maximum possible death and destruction upon Lebanon, specifically targeting Hezbollah's social base, its displaced and uprooted populations, and the communities sheltering over a million people displaced from the South, Dahiyeh, and the Bekaa Valley. This is part of a “shock and awe” tactic and a continuation of the “scorched earth” strategy that Tel Aviv has long employed to instill terror in the hearts of successive generations of Palestinians, Lebanese, and Arabs, in the hope that it will serve as a deterrent lesson.

 

Under the first explanation, one could say that Lebanon's inclusion alongside Iran in the agreement was among Netanyahu's greatest concerns. He may claim that the Israeli/U.S. war against Iran achieved many accomplishments, even if no one believes him. However, this claim will find no buyers in Israel, especially among residents of the northern settlements, who are witnessing firsthand the faltering operations of their “invincible army” in the frontline towns of South Lebanon, and who have furthermore experienced, through the past six weeks, just how untrue it is that Hezbollah's rocket and drone arsenal has been destroyed. In any case, they remain confined to shelters and safe rooms under the Home Front Command's instructions.

 

In truth, promoting a ceasefire on the Iranian front is easier for Netanyahu (despite its difficulty) than promoting a similar ceasefire on the Lebanese front. Israelis, who largely supported the war on Iran, even after hope faded of achieving its “maximum objectives,” support the war on Lebanon to an even greater degree, and persistently so. This is one of the realities of Israeli domestic politics that Netanyahu understands and fears. Hence, just hours after the ceasefire agreement was announced, he rushed to declare that it does not include Lebanon and that the war against the country and its resistance would continue.

 

Under the second interpretation, which is no less plausible, Netanyahu fears the Iran/U.S. talks to be held in Islamabad on Friday [sic], especially in light of Tehran's insistence on “linking the tracks,” and its negotiators' view that the blatant aggression against Lebanon constitutes a grave violation of the agreement that may warrant an Iranian response in kind and could jeopardize the entire deal. This crucial point has been seized upon by Hezbollah, as well as by the Lebanese state, which moved quickly to contain Netanyahu's attempts to “separate the tracks” and to leverage this clause to bring an end to the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.

 

A wide array of Arab and Islamic countries — and indeed, the majority of the international community — support the idea of ending hostilities across all fronts and tracks, fearing that escalation on any one of them could lead to the collapse of an already fragile agreement. Capitals around the world see an interest in stabilizing and strengthening the ceasefire, and in moving toward a permanent, comprehensive, and final peace agreement.

 

It is as though Netanyahu is racing against time. He is intent on exploiting the 48-hour window between the ceasefire and the Islamabad negotiations to inflict the maximum possible destruction and casualties among the Lebanese — all Lebanese, but especially Hezbollah and its social base. It seems that the man and his governing circle, in both the political and military establishments, did not anticipate that they would have only a limited window to act in Lebanon, nor did it occur to them that Washington would accommodate Tehran, if only on the unity of arenas and the linking of tracks. For Netanyahu, time is like a sword — if he does not cut with it, it will cut him.

 

Attention now turns to how Hezbollah will respond first to these bloody attacks. Its reaction will likely not be long in coming. Hezbollah adhered to the ceasefire the moment Iran and the U.S. did, returning to a policy of restraint in the face of ongoing Israeli attacks. But the assault that tore through the heart of the capital will make it difficult for it to continue a policy of patience and endurance.

More importantly, how will Iran respond to the first test of the agreement? Will it leave Hezbollah to face the Israeli war machine alone? The prevailing assessment is that Iran considers the Israeli attack on Lebanon a serious breach of the agreement, prompting communications with Islamabad, and particularly with the Pakistani army chief, in an effort to salvage the fragile deal before it collapses.

 

Tehran's allies in Iraq and Yemen, according to their own sources, will not abandon Hezbollah but intend to engage in a war of support, which could spiral into a renewed, broader conflict. This has prompted Pakistani diplomatic channels to reiterate that the agreement includes Lebanon and not Iran alone, followed by a whirlwind of intensive communications to curb Israel's unbridled aggression.

 

According to diplomatic sources, Iran's “foot-dragging” in reopening the Strait of Hormuz is a form of pressure aimed at halting the Israeli war on Lebanon, and at pushing Washington, in particular, to pressure Netanyahu and his government to stop this madness.

Under no circumstances can it be ruled out that Iran may opt to employ a tactic of separation between the just-broken-up allies. As it plans its response to the Israeli strikes on Lebanon, Iran may choose to limit its retaliation to targeting Israel exclusively, sparing U.S. bases and assets, and may instruct its allies (its regional proxies) to follow suit.

 

In short, Netanyahu stands embattled by Trump's abandonment of him and his move toward a deal with Iran behind his back, just as he did when he struck a deal with the Houthi Ansarullah behind Israel's back, leaving the port of Eilat in ruins due to Yemeni attacks on Israel-bound ships.

Realizing that the task of derailing the agreement may not be easy, given Trump's enthusiasm for it and his promotion of its benefits, Netanyahu will, at the bare minimum, resort to drowning Lebanon in blood and destruction during the short interval between the ceasefire agreement and the Islamabad talks.