Terry Newman believes, in an article in the Israeli newspaper Maariv, that any potential agreement between Lebanon and Israel, which requires the separation of Hezbollah from Iran, may represent a political opportunity for US President Donald Trump to boast of achieving a victory against Tehran.
Newman explains that international diplomacy depends as much on the ability to declare victory as it does on actually achieving it. He points out that such an agreement may provide Trump with an appropriate political way out of the ongoing escalation with Iran.
The writer notes that Trump adopted from the beginning a policy of “maximum pressure” on Tehran, and set three main goals: destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities, weakening its missile arsenal, and dismantling the network of its regional allies that it had established over the years. The article adds that these goals were not just security demands, but were also essential elements in the political discourse that Trump adopted in his policy towards Iran.
In this context, the potential role of any agreement between Lebanon and Israel emerges. According to Newman’s analysis, dismantling Hezbollah or separating it from Iranian support will greatly affect Tehran’s regional influence system. The writer believes that Hezbollah, for decades, has been Iran’s most important military force outside its borders, and a major tool for threatening American and Israeli interests, without the need for Tehran to engage in a direct confrontation.
The writer points out that if this role declines, even partially, Trump will be able to present it as evidence of the success of the American pressure policy in weakening the “axis of Iranian influence” in the region.
Newman adds that this scenario becomes more important if it coincides with the success of American and Israeli military strikes in weakening or eliminating the Iranian nuclear program, including transferring enriched uranium to a third party and reducing Iranian missile capabilities. In this case, Trump will be able to claim that he achieved the three goals he announced at the beginning of the confrontation.
The writer explains that from a political standpoint, such an outcome might allow Trump to announce the end of the military phase without sliding into a long war aimed at regime change in Iran, a scenario that many Americans fear. Instead of withdrawing from a costly conflict, it will appear as an exit from the confrontation as a “political victory.”
As for Israel, the article believes that an agreement of this type may carry great strategic implications. Separating Hezbollah from the Iranian regional system will significantly reduce the main military threat on the Lebanese-Israeli border.
The writer also believes that this may open the door to a new regional reality, as the Lebanese state gradually regains full sovereignty over its lands, and the line of contact between Lebanon and Israel transforms from an arena of continuous confrontation to more stable borders.
Newman concludes that this development will not be just a tactical achievement in the confrontation with Iran, but rather may represent a deeper shift in the regional balance of power.
