In successive positions that reflect a parallel political escalation on the ground, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar outlined the features of the next stage in dealing with Lebanon and Iran, linking any Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory to the establishment of “actual authority” for the government and the army.
Saar said in statements to Al-Arabiya channel that Israel “will withdraw from Lebanon when there is actual authority for the government and the army,” considering that the current reality does not meet this condition, in reference to Hezbollah’s continued influence in security decisions.
In a related context, Sa’ar accused Hezbollah of “violating the will of the Lebanese government,” adding that Israel “will respond to any targeting as it deems appropriate,” in a position that reflects Tel Aviv’s adherence to the equation of open response on the northern front.
He also stressed that his country “does not have any regional ambitions in Lebanon,” in an attempt to present the Israeli proposal within a security, not expansionist, framework, in parallel with emphasizing that the withdrawal remains conditional on a change in the balance of power within Lebanon.
In a parallel line, Saar touched on the Iranian file, revealing that Israel “gives the diplomatic track with Iran a chance,” but he warned that this track is not open indefinitely, adding that his country “will reconsider the military option if the American negotiations fail.”
These statements come in light of a complex regional escalation, as fronts intersect between southern Lebanon and the Iranian nuclear issue, amid increasing American pressure on Tehran, and Israeli warnings that the moment of decisiveness is approaching.
The Israeli link between the situation in Lebanon and the Iranian file reflects a strategic approach that considers that any calm on the northern front remains linked to the outcomes of the broader confrontation with Tehran, especially in light of the continued Iranian support for Hezbollah.
On the other hand, the condition that Sa’ar spoke about raises a complex internal Lebanese problem, related to the concept of “exclusivity of weapons” and the role of the state in extending its authority, a file that has long been the focus of internal political division and continuous external pressure.
Developments indicate that the next stage may witness further political and diplomatic escalation, while keeping the military option present as a pressure tool, whether in Lebanon or in the context of the broader confrontation with Iran, which puts the region on a path open to multiple possibilities.
