On Tuesday evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will hold a meeting of the security mini-ministerial council, in the first session of its kind since reports emerged of progress in an agreement between the United States and Iran, amid sharp criticism within Israel and warnings that the proposed formula does not meet Israeli security concerns.
According to what CNN reported from two Israeli sources, Netanyahu has so far avoided criticizing US President Donald Trump publicly, but he acknowledged in closed conversations that his influence on Washington’s decisions and negotiations with Tehran has become limited.
Israeli security sources view the emerging agreement in its current form with concern, considering that it does not address the fundamental concerns related to the Iranian nuclear program, especially Iran’s stock of enriched uranium.
On the other hand, reports indicate that Tehran is pushing to strengthen the ceasefire in Lebanon, at a time when Hezbollah has intensified its daily drone attacks against Israeli forces and northern settlements, which has doubled the pressure on Netanyahu and his government.
Internally, the Israeli Prime Minister faces an increasing wave of criticism from his political opponents and from within his own government coalition. Former Israeli Army Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot described the situation as “a ceasefire imposed under conditions that are not favorable to Israel,” considering that it endangers the residents of the north and army soldiers.
In a more escalating stance, far-right ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich called for a stronger military response. Ben Gvir said that Netanyahu must confront Trump and stress that Israel “cannot accept this path,” while Smotrich believed that “the strategic threat is not faced only with defense, but by changing the rules of engagement.”
Smotrich added, in an escalating statement, that “for every explosive drone, 10 buildings must collapse in Beirut,” indicating the amount of pressure exerted by the more hard-line wing within the Israeli government to push Netanyahu towards expanding operations in Lebanon.
On Monday, Netanyahu published a video statement in which he confirmed that the Israeli army would intensify its strikes in Lebanon, a day after intense drone attacks by Hezbollah, saying: “We must increase the strikes, and increase the intensity. We will strike them firmly.”
The security mini-ministerial council meeting comes at a very sensitive moment, as three pressure fronts intersect before Netanyahu at the same time: the American-Iranian track, which appears to be progressing beyond Israel’s ability to fully control it, the Lebanese front, which is witnessing a daily escalation with marches and exchanged strikes, and the internal division within Israel over how to deal with developments.
Israel fears, as reflected in the security and political positions, that any understanding between Washington and Tehran will lead to restricting the scope of its military movement, whether in the Iranian file or on the Lebanese front. Iran’s linking of the path of regional calm to the ceasefire in Lebanon increases the sensitivity of the Israeli position, because any broad understanding may impose new rules of engagement that are not compatible with the calculations of Netanyahu and his allies.
As for the northern front, the escalation of assault drone attacks constitutes an additional element of pressure on the Israeli government, especially with the continued state of anxiety in the northern settlements, and Netanyahu’s opponents accuse him of being unable to restore security to those areas. Hence, his call to “increase strikes” appears to be an attempt to respond to internal pressures, but at the same time it may open the door to a broader escalation with Lebanon.
Netanyahu finds himself facing a complex equation: he does not want a direct clash with Trump at a sensitive negotiating moment with Iran, but he cannot ignore the objections of the security establishment and the extreme right within his government. Between the calculations of Washington and Tehran and the pressure of the marches from Lebanon, the upcoming security session appears to be a test of the limits of the Israeli decision at a stage in which regional understandings are being formed, and Israel may not be the strongest party in formulating them.
