In an in-depth analysis of the regional situation, Professor Amtzia Baram, an Israeli expert specializing in strategies and Middle East affairs at the University of Haifa, believes that Lebanon represents a fulcrum in the potential confrontation with Iran. It is believed that any nuclear agreement between Washington and Tehran may leave the Lebanese arena vulnerable to power struggles, without addressing the core of the problem.
In an interview with the Maariv newspaper, Baram confirmed that there is a “broad parliamentary majority” in Lebanon demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah, but he believes that international pressure is insufficient to transform this political reality into concrete measures. He pointed out that the Lebanese government, if the political will is present, could seek to issue a clear decision to disarm all armed groups except the army and security forces, while supporting this decision with a law that has a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which will lead to political isolation of the party and undermine its legitimacy at home.
He added that Hezbollah’s rejection of this path would make it classified as a “rebel organization,” which would weaken its narrative that it carries weapons to defend Lebanon, especially in light of accusations from its opponents that it is linked to Iran. He proposed taking measures against the party’s economic structure, such as separating its banks from the central bank, closing its private networks, and even reactivating intelligence tools to monitor its financial interests abroad.
Regarding Iran, Baram believes that the American administration is mainly focused on achieving achievement in the nuclear file. He said that US President Donald Trump needs a “written and signed” agreement that can be presented as an achievement that goes beyond the 2015 agreement, noting that American considerations are not only strategic, but also political and media.
But he warned that any potential nuclear agreement may not include other issues, such as Iran’s missile program or Tehran’s support for its allies in the region. He noted that the United States may be heading toward a major nuclear agreement, but it may abandon its strict demands on missiles, “regional arms” and the Iranian opposition, which means – from an Israeli perspective – the continuation of major threats.
Baram believes that Tehran may show flexibility regarding the nuclear file in particular, because concessions therein, although they may affect the regime’s image, do not affect the essence of its security doctrine. But he stressed that Iran “will not give up under any circumstances” the missile system or support Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Iraqi militias, and even Hamas, because these tools represent, as he described, basic pillars of the defense strategy and the export of Iranian influence, and any retreat from them may threaten the stability of the regime itself.
Regarding the possibility of escalation, Baram estimates that the possibility of a limited US strike still exists at a rate of slightly more than 50%, considering that the military threat is part of a pressure mechanism to push Tehran to make concessions, but it may turn into actual implementation if negotiations do not advance quickly and directly.
He pointed out that even if an effective nuclear agreement is reached, Israel will face a complex security situation, as the direct nuclear threat may decline, but the danger of missiles and the “ring of fire” surrounding them will remain, which necessitates greater investments in defense systems and strengthening security cooperation with the United States.
Baram’s warning was not limited to Iran, but also pointed to Turkey’s growing influence in the region, considering that if Iran is stripped of its nuclear capabilities, Ankara may become, in the long term, more dangerous due to its military power, its extensive relations within NATO, and its regional ambitions. He pointed out that Türkiye is expanding its political and economic presence in Syria and Iraq, and seeks to consolidate its influence in Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan through long-term networks of influence.
Baram concluded his talk to Maariv by stressing that the Iranian threat and its proxies represent an urgent danger, but the broader regional transformations, from Lebanon to Turkey, force Israel – as he put it – to think strategically in the next stage, because whoever does not anticipate the changes early will later find himself in a position of reaction, not action.
