Could Iran Negotiations Limit Israel's War Against Hezbollah in Lebanon?

By Dr. Walid Phares

AI photo with the flags of Israel, Lebanon and Iran

As Israel intensifies military pressure on Hezbollah in Lebanon, a strategic question is emerging across the region: could ongoing negotiations with Iran eventually limit Israel's campaign against Tehran's most powerful regional proxy? 

While Washington and Jerusalem remain aligned in their opposition to Hezbollah, recent developments suggest that their priorities may not be identical. For Israel, preventing Hezbollah from rebuilding its military capabilities along the northern border is an immediate security imperative. For the Trump administration, however, broader negotiations with Iran may introduce additional considerations that could affect the future of the Lebanon front.

The geopolitical situation in Lebanon has shifted sharply as U.S. and Israeli priorities toward Lebanon appear to be diverging. What had long been a shared commitment to eliminate Hezbollah's military power—a standing U.S. policy for decades and one actively pursued by Israel, particularly since October 7—has become increasingly complicated by Washington's engagement with the Islamic regime in Iran.

Following the U.S.-Iran ceasefire and the launch of diplomatic talks, the Trump administration publicly maintained that Tehran would not be allowed to influence U.S. or Israeli policy regarding Lebanon. Officials also insisted that Lebanon would not become a bargaining chip in negotiations with Iran. Yet recent developments have raised questions about whether the Lebanese file is becoming indirectly tied to broader U.S.-Iran discussions.

Hezbollah's Return to Confrontation

Meanwhile, Hezbollah continued escalating its actions against Israel, drawing Jerusalem back into military confrontation. Israel could not permit an Iranian-backed force to reestablish itself along its northern border. Israeli leaders remain determined to prevent a repeat of the population displacements that forced residents of the Galilee to relocate to central Israel. Consequently, the Netanyahu government launched a broad campaign aimed at pushing Hezbollah away from southern Lebanon and preventing the organization from rebuilding its military infrastructure near the border.

Ironically, Hezbollah had every reason to avoid another conflict. Following the twelve-day war of 2025, Israel had severely degraded the organization's military capabilities, destroying much of its missile arsenal, neutralizing air-defense systems, and eliminating significant portions of its senior leadership. Nevertheless, the militia failed to comply fully with ceasefire arrangements, refused to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese Armed Forces, and maintained positions south of the Litani River despite international commitments requiring its withdrawal.

When Israeli forces entered parts of southern Lebanon months later, they found Hezbollah units still deployed in the area, rebuilding stockpiles and reinforcing positions. Israeli officials concluded that the militia was preparing for future attacks, prompting Tel Aviv to launch a combination of ground operations and precision airstrikes against Hezbollah targets, including command centers in Dahiyeh, its principal stronghold south of Beirut.

Hezbollah's Domestic Challenge in Lebanon

Yet Hezbollah's concerns extended beyond Israel's military campaign. Since the early 1990s—and especially following Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000—the organization steadily expanded its influence throughout Lebanon's political, security, and administrative institutions. Critics argue that over time Hezbollah established dominant influence within key sectors of the state, including intelligence and security agencies.

As a result, many Lebanese outside the Shiite community came to view the organization as an instrument of Iranian influence rather than simply a domestic political movement. Long before the current conflict, significant segments of the population had opposed Hezbollah's dominance. The Cedar Revolution of 2005 mobilized approximately 1.5 million Lebanese against Syrian occupation and Hezbollah's armed influence, contributing to the withdrawal of Syrian forces and renewed efforts to challenge the militia's power.

The struggle continued in subsequent years. Hezbollah's armed takeover of parts of Beirut in May 2008 reinforced its political position, but tensions persisted with Sunni, Druze, and Christian communities. By the mid-2020s, Hezbollah faced not only external pressure from Israel but also growing domestic opposition from Lebanese factions that viewed its military role as a threat to national sovereignty.

Israel's Campaign and Lebanon's Political Balance

The regional conflicts that followed October 7 intensified these divisions. Hezbollah's opponents accused the organization of dragging Lebanon into a destructive regional confrontation on behalf of Iran. Following Hezbollah's military setbacks in 2025 and the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States, the militia sought to strengthen its position inside Lebanon by redeploying south of the Litani River—an area it was supposed to have vacated under previous agreements.

Israel responded militarily, and Hezbollah retaliated with attacks on the Galilee, triggering broader Israeli operations throughout Lebanon, particularly in the southern suburbs of Beirut. The resulting destruction displaced large numbers of civilians and further weakened Hezbollah's standing. As military pressure mounted, reports emerged of threats against the Lebanese government and warnings of possible attempts by the militia to expand its control over state institutions, drawing criticism from Washington.

At the same time, the U.S. president reportedly reassured Israel that "Lebanon is not part of the deal with Iran," signaling that negotiations with Tehran would not necessarily restrict Israeli military operations against Hezbollah. Israel subsequently resumed strikes against Dahiyeh while continuing its advances in southern Lebanon, particularly around Khiam and Nabatiyeh.

Of particular significance was the movement of Israeli forces toward the districts of Jezzine and the Chouf in southern Mount Lebanon. These regions, with their Christian and Druze populations, occupy strategically important terrain overlooking key routes between southern Lebanon and Beirut. Some analysts believe that Israeli advances into these areas could alter Lebanon's internal balance of power by encouraging broader opposition to Hezbollah beyond the southern battlefield.

The Emerging Question: Trump, Iran, and Hezbollah

Faced with these developments, Tehran reportedly sought to use intermediaries to persuade Washington to restrain Israel in exchange for renewed negotiations and progress toward a broader agreement. This effort appears to have exposed differing priorities between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. While Trump remains focused on securing a strategic understanding with Iran, Netanyahu continues to prioritize military pressure on Hezbollah.

Will Diplomacy or Military Strategy Prevail?

The real test may come if Washington concludes that progress with Tehran requires limiting Israeli operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon. So far, the Trump administration has insisted that Lebanon is not part of any bargain with Iran. Yet as negotiations advance, pressure will inevitably grow to prevent actions that could derail a broader understanding between Washington and Tehran.

If that moment arrives, the emerging gap between American diplomatic priorities and Israeli security imperatives will become increasingly difficult to manage. For Israel, Hezbollah remains the most powerful Iranian proxy on its border and a threat that cannot be allowed to regenerate. For Iran, preserving Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon remains central to its regional strategy. And for Lebanon itself, the outcome may determine whether the country finally begins to escape decades of militia domination—or remains trapped in the cycle of proxy conflict that has defined its modern history.

Dr. Walid Phares is a former foreign policy advisor to Donald Trump, former advisor to the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, and author of Iran: An Imperialist Republic and U.S. Policy.