TEHRAN – The Zionist regime’s prime minister is not expected to easily surrender his plans and aspirations in Lebanon.

Doing so would not only destroy his future but also his legacy and his past. Therefore, traps remain present in the paths of the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and the Israeli regime, which Benjamin Netanyahu tried to avoid as much as possible.

Before the truce came into effect, a consensus prevailed among most specialists and stakeholders within the Zionist regime: it was undisputed that Netanyahu’s interest lay in continuing the war, even on a single front, and obstructing negotiations whenever possible until he achieves his goals. This concerns surviving the challenges that confront him and his struggle for political survival.

In the original war plan, everything on paper promised him a celebration after he succeeded in convincing Donald Trump to wage an illegal war on Iran. The plan was to topple the Islamic Republic, then focus on eliminating Hezbollah once it became isolated, besieged, and cut off from its roots, followed by Yemen and Iraq. Only one step separated him from achieving “absolute victory” and “changing the face of the Middle East” forever, establishing a “Greater Israel.”

Achieving this goal would not only allow him to capitalize on these accomplishments in the elections scheduled to take place a few months later, but also enhance his chances of deflecting the charges against him in the trial he is currently undergoing. It would also erase the stigma resulting from the consequences of the October 7, 2023 attack, which occurred during his tenure and under his leadership. 

On this matter, he still insists today on refusing to form an official government committee to investigate the attack, which, from the perspective of his opponents and part of the Israeli public, places him under suspicion and an attempt to evade responsibility. So what if new dilemmas were added to these challenges, such as failing to achieve the war’s objectives against Iran and the emergence of a complex predicament on the regime’s northern front that has effectively compounded his losses?

On one hand, it has become clear that the achievements he touted over the past months regarding the final dismantling of Hezbollah’s capabilities and the shift in the balance of power and deterrence on the northern front are weak. On the other hand, he must now deal with this predicament, as a significant portion of the Israeli regime’s public, particularly settlers in the north, insist on the need to eliminate this threat.

Netanyahu’s personal record is now at stake: he wanted to inscribe it in gold as one of the kings of the Zionist regime who succeeded in turning the defeat of October 7 into a historic and final victory. Instead, he may become a cautionary tale: the man who wanted everything lost everything.

But the matter does not stop here. From Hormuz to Bint Jbeil: the story is not just about Netanyahu.

The issue transcends being a crisis specific to Netanyahu, revealing instead a broader predicament involving the regime’s army, security, and military establishments, along with the public. The scale of discontent accompanying and following the ceasefire with Lebanon is evident, both among the opposition and the government coalition. The flood of news and data in recent hours and days calls for an attempt to redraw the scene away from distracting factors.

Over the past weeks, Israeli officials have emphasized that the war in Lebanon would continue even if it stopped on the Iranian front. Zionist officials kept repeating these promises to their public until just days ago. In contrast, Iran announced its commitment not to abandon its allies and not to allow Lebanon to be singled out. In the end, Iranian prevailed, evidenced by the regime authorities’ embarrassment at not ratifying the Lebanese truce in the last cabinet meeting.

The regime's Channel 14 noted that ministers were informed of the ceasefire via a phone call it described as a “foregone conclusion,” without being given the right to object, calling it “amazing and shameful.” Meanwhile, a report on the Kan website pointed out that it was striking that the U.S. president announced the ceasefire between the Zionist regime and Hezbollah to the public, not the regime’s government or its prime minister.

Netanyahu had no good options. Almost all of them ranged from bad to worse. The regime’s army is incapable of presenting him with a picture of victory in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil, which has become a symbol of confrontation, remains steadfast. What matters here is that the Israeli public has continued to demand the continuation of the war to eliminate Hezbollah’s threat, while Israeli forces have been unable to advance and establish positions without suffering heavy losses.

Above this problem lies an even greater calamity. The power on which the regime relies in its war is itself mired in a strategic predicament at the Strait of Hormuz, unable to escape. One of the key factors working against it and pressuring it is time.

Netanyahu’s high-stakes positions could be misleading if not understood in the context of both the field and the political situation. Political rhetoric may sometimes align with realities, but at other times it serves to compensate for shortcomings, fill gaps, deceive, and reserve diplomatic options. This is evident in Netanyahu’s promises to the Israeli public that the war on the Lebanese front will continue to achieve goals that remain out of reach.

His announcement after the truce with Lebanon represents an opportunity for a “historic peace” based on strength, stemming from a radical change in the balance of power, and his insistence on disarming Hezbollah as a precondition for any agreement, align with promises he can no longer evade. Otherwise, he would face a definitive defeat if he achieved nothing of the sort.

Viewing it this way, the Lebanese negotiation process offers a way out of the occupation regime’s predicament, backed by American support. With the announcement of the truce, it became clear that the attempt to separate the resistance fronts through this path has suffered a setback. 

Yet the war is not over, and with it, the Zionist regime and America continue their attempts to achieve by other means what they failed to accomplish on the ground. Hence, a cautious stance is being expressed by many observers.