Israel’s latest escalation in Lebanon suggests a deliberate strategy to separate its war on the country from wider regional diplomacy, raising questions about whether any forthcoming US-Iran deal can meaningfully put an end to Israel's attacks there.
Israeli airstrikes intensified sharply on Tuesday, killing at least 31 people , including six children, and wounding dozens across southern Lebanon. The dead included 14 people in a single attack on Borj El Chmali.
Amid the massacres, Israeli forces issued around 50 forced displacement orders for towns and villages in the south and east, as well as the entire city of Nabatieh – signalling the potential for a larger offensive.
At the same time, Israeli officials indicated a possible shift toward even more aggressive tactics, including targeted assassinations in urban centres.
Extremely-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich wrote on X that “for every explosive drone, ten buildings in Beirut must fall,” underscoring a growing appetite within parts of the Israeli leadership for more destruction in densely populated areas.
On the ground, Israel appears to be pushing deeper into southern Lebanon.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the ICC for war crimes in Gaza, said the Israeli army was “operating with large forces on the ground and seizing dominant terrain,” while reports suggest troops have advanced beyond the "Yellow Line" established under the 16 April ceasefire.
This dual air and ground escalation comes just days before Israeli and Lebanese military delegations are due to meet at the Pentagon for US-mediated security talks, ahead of a renewed political negotiation process next week.
Rather than signalling restraint, however, the timing has raised concerns that Israel is seeking to shape the diplomatic environment through force.
According to David Wood, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, Israel’s actions point to a broader strategic objective: ensuring that any US-Iran agreement does not limit its military freedom in Lebanon.
“It seems as though Israel, right now, is trying to establish both by word and deed that even if the US and Iran reach some kind of deal, that deal will not constrain Israel’s freedom of military action in Lebanon,” Wood told The New Arab . “All of these operations reflect Israel’s desire to completely split out the Lebanon and Iran front so that a ceasefire with Iran does not mean a ceasefire in Lebanon.”
This approach directly challenges Tehran’s position. Iran has insisted that any ceasefire arrangement tied to negotiations with Washington should also extend to Lebanon. Yet Israel has made clear it does not see itself as bound by such terms, setting up a potential fault line in the talks.
Wood notes that the key uncertainty is how far Iran is willing to push this demand. If Israel continues its attacks or maintains its presence in southern Lebanon, Tehran could face a difficult choice: accept a deal with the US that excludes Lebanon, or risk abandoning diplomatic gains to defend its regional ally Hezbollah.
“The question is how far Iran is willing to go,” Wood said. “Would it be willing to pull out of a potential deal with the US for the sake of a ceasefire extending to Lebanon? Or if a deal is reached and Israel later resumes escalation, would Iran walk away from the agreement and its benefits?”
On the ground, the conflict remains locked in a strategic stalemate. Israeli leaders have conditioned any withdrawal from southern Lebanon on Hezbollah’s full disarmament – an outcome the group has categorically rejected. As a result, Israel’s ongoing occupation of roughly six percent of Lebanese territory could persist indefinitely.
However, Wood warns that such an arrangement carries significant risks for Israel. While it retains overwhelming military superiority, its forces remain exposed to Hezbollah’s entrenched guerrilla tactics.
“While Israeli troops remain occupying Lebanese territory, they will always on some level remain vulnerable,” he said. “It’s very likely that Hezbollah will be able to keep inflicting casualties… and continue to violently resist Israel’s occupation of Lebanese sovereignty.”
This dynamic raises the likelihood of further escalation in the coming weeks. Wood cautions that Israel may expand its campaign to include intensified airstrikes and assassination operations in major urban areas, including Beirut, where civilian casualties would likely rise sharply.
“There’s a very real risk that Israel will escalate even further,” he said, pointing to the possibility of strikes in densely populated areas.
In this context, US pressure emerges as a critical factor.
Wood argues that Washington – particularly US President Donald Trump – holds significant leverage over Israeli decision-making.
“Pressure from the United States on Israel to deescalate will be crucial,” he said. “Israel’s leadership appears hellbent on intensifying its military operations, but US pressure is clearly the most effective tool to compel Israel to better observe the terms of the ceasefire.”
At the same time, he stressed the need for parallel efforts to engage Hezbollah through intermediaries, in order to reinforce adherence to any ceasefire framework.
Ultimately, the trajectory of the conflict may hinge on whether diplomatic efforts can keep pace with rapidly evolving military realities.
Without sustained external pressure and credible negotiation channels, the current escalation risks hardening into a broader and more destructive phase of the war – one increasingly detached from the very diplomatic processes meant to contain it.