The Hebrew newspaper “Maariv” acknowledged that the political leadership in Israel lacks a clear strategy for what is known as “the next day,” whether in Iran or Lebanon, noting that the Israeli army is at a decisive crossroads between continuing the fighting in the Lebanese arena, or preparing for the possibility of resuming the war with Iran.
By “the next day,” the newspaper meant the stage following US President Donald Trump’s announcement that an agreement with Iran would be close, in exchange for his administration’s commitment to strengthening diplomatic channels between Beirut and Tel Aviv, under American sponsorship.
According to Maariv, the Iranian arena is witnessing a state of anticipation within the Israeli military establishment, with the return of large forces from the Golani Brigade, the 7th Brigade, and the Multi-Dimensional Unit to Israel, in preparation for the possible resumption of fighting against Iran.
However, according to the newspaper, the political level does not have a clear answer to the central question: Is Israel heading to a new war with Iran, or will it end Operation “Lion’s Roar” with what Maariv described as “the cat’s meow,” indicating a decline in the momentum of the operation compared to the slogans that accompanied it.
The Israeli confusion does not seem any less evident in the Lebanese file. The newspaper saw that the scene brings to mind the experience of 1982, when the Israeli army lacked a clear political position determining the path of escalation or return after controlling Beaufort Castle.
“Maariv” indicated that the fighters of the 36th Division are currently stationed on the Ali al-Tahir Heights in southern Lebanon, where they control the area where the Saluki and Litani rivers meet, and occupy an observation post that allows them to fire towards Nabatieh, a city whose symbolism goes beyond, according to the newspaper, being a spiritual and cultural center for Shiites in Lebanon, as it also includes the headquarters of the Amal Movement and a number of Hezbollah strongholds.
The newspaper added that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now required to make a clear decision: Do the forces stop at Nabatieh, or continue advancing west towards Tire or Sidon? She pointed out that all options seem to be on the table, after the Israeli army issued warnings to the residents of the two cities and the villages surrounding them.
“Maariv” quoted political sources in Tel Aviv as saying that the Israeli government lacks a clear strategy or major plans, especially since controlling Nabatieh, according to these sources, is no longer just a field step to prevent shooting at the northern settlements, but rather has turned into a means of pressure on Hezbollah and its leaders and allies in Tehran.
The sources concluded that the ambiguity of the Israeli position on Iran and Lebanon is similar to the ambiguity surrounding Netanyahu’s plans in the Gaza Strip, and the chances of reaching a serious political settlement with Syria, which paints a broader picture of a government moving on more than one front without a clear vision of the outcome of the battle or the conditions for exiting it.
The reading of “Maariv” comes at a time when Israel is experiencing simultaneous pressure on multiple fronts, from Iran to Lebanon, Gaza and Syria, in conjunction with American moves to keep the door to negotiation open with Tehran, and an attempt to advance a diplomatic path between Lebanon and Israel. This overlap makes the Israeli military decision more complex, because it is no longer linked to the calculations of a single front, but rather to an entire regional path that may change depending on any US-Iranian agreement.
In Lebanon, Israel’s dilemma seems linked to a question beyond the limits of military operations: What comes after controlling new sites or heights? Previous experiences, especially the 1982 experience, showed that military progress without a clear political goal may turn into a long exhaustion, especially in a complex southern environment that is difficult to control by military force alone.
As for Iran, any return to escalation will depend first on Washington’s position, and on whether the anticipated agreement with Tehran will succeed in freezing the confrontation or push Israel to act alone for fear of losing the margin of military pressure. Between these two possibilities, the Israeli army appears, according to the Hebrew narrative, in a waiting position: ready on the ground, but without decisive political direction.
This reading reveals that Israel’s current crisis is not only in the multiplicity of fronts, but in the absence of a unified vision for the aftermath of the operations. The war can start with a quick decision, but ending it requires a clear political map, which is what Maariv says the Netanyahu government lacks today, from southern Lebanon to Tehran.
