As the Israeli regime’s attacks on Lebanon intensified, while the killings and blockade in Gaza continued and reports emerged of an alleged Israeli plan to launch operations in southern Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs, US President Donald Trump suddenly announced on Truth Social:
“I had a very productive phone call with Netanyahu. Netanyahu assured me that no forces will be sent into Beirut, and any forces that were on their way have been recalled.”
US president also claimed: “Through high-level representatives, I had a very good phone conversation with Hezbollah, and they agreed to a complete ceasefire. Israel will not attack Hezbollah, and Hezbollah will not attack Israel.”
He further asserted, “a ceasefire agreement in Lebanon has been reached. Negotiations with Iran are moving forward more rapidly. Netanyahu will not send any forces into Beirut.”
Once again, Trump has sought to seize control of the media narrative and present himself as a champion of global security. Yet his statements are less indicative of a genuine effort toward peace than a reminder of decades of US partnership with the Israeli regime in wars, destruction, and violence throughout the region—a reality that places a historic responsibility upon the peoples of the region and the world to bring an end to the US presence in West Asia and pursue a lasting and inclusive peace.
Public Relations Spectacle Versus Reality on the Ground
Trump has attempted, on a personal level, to elevate his own standing and, on a broader level, to present the United States as a force for de-escalation and peace. He has sought to use this image as a tool for building international consensus around Washington’s objectives and as leverage over countries and the international community in matters related to ending wars.
However, a closer look at realities on the ground reveals facts that undermine Trump’s claims. Evidence suggests that his rhetoric and promises have played no meaningful role in bringing peace to any conflict zone. The war in Ukraine continues, and the devastation in Gaza persists despite Trump’s repeated declarations about peace.
The United States has also failed to uphold commitments made within diplomatic processes in which it played a central role, including negotiations with Iran, ultimately turning to military aggression during the course of diplomacy. Developments in Venezuela likewise demonstrate that wherever weakness and concession toward the United States exist, intervention and pressure tend to continue.
Accordingly, an explanation beyond simple peace advocacy must be sought for Trump’s actions regarding Lebanon. Based on Trump’s political record, power is the only language he truly understands. His recent actions should therefore be examined through the lens of developments on the ground. On one side stands Hezbollah’s ability to respond to Israeli attacks and impose a costly war of attrition on the Israeli regime. On the other stand Iran’s firm diplomatic and strategic warnings.
Iran’s decisive performance during the Ramadan War and its response to recent US attacks on southern cities compelled Trump to retreat. This field reality has been reinforced by warnings from Yemen and the Iraqi Resistance regarding the consequences of continued aggression against Lebanon, creating a significant deterrent against further escalation.
Trump’s Unintended Admission About the True Nature of US–Tel Aviv Relations
While Trump seeks to portray himself as a savior, his intervention in restraining Netanyahu and reducing attacks on Lebanon carries a significant message: the leadership of the Israeli regime ultimately remains dependent on Washington, and the United States can, with a single decision, halt the continuation of the regime’s actions from Gaza and Lebanon to Syria and elsewhere in the region.
Based on Trump’s own statements, one could conclude that the Israeli regime functions as an instrument serving broader US objectives in West Asia and beyond. Consequently, the decades of occupation, military operations, and violence associated with the regime have occurred with US direction, support, and participation. Official Pentagon reports themselves document the allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel.
Trump’s remarks also recall comments made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who stated that Israel performs the “dirty work of the West” in the region.
A country capable of stopping a war with a single phone call must answer a fundamental question: How has it ignored what critics describe as genocide and crimes against humanity in Gaza, as well as Israeli military actions and occupations in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, while simultaneously continuing to arm and support the regime at every level?
A Mediator That Is Itself Part of the Crisis
Trump’s statements also amount to another admission: the United States has never been a neutral mediator and cannot serve as the guarantor of peace in Palestine, Lebanon, or elsewhere in the region.
A country that has, for decades, allowed the Israeli regime to operate without meaningful restraint and that even now has proposed no punitive mechanism for violations of ceasefire agreements cannot credibly claim to be advancing peace. The purported ceasefire itself may ultimately serve as an effort to force Lebanon into concessions while consolidating Israeli positions on the ground.
In other words, Trump’s conduct suggests that initiatives such as the reported Pentagon-hosted meetings between Lebanese and Israeli military officials are designed less to achieve peace than to steer Lebanon toward accommodation. This helps explain why resistance groups and many Lebanese political currents oppose such initiatives, citing deep distrust of the United States and its lack of neutrality.
A clear example of this pattern can be seen, according to critics, in the process known as the Gaza Peace Council, which many international observers argue has become a mechanism facilitating continued occupation and systematic destruction in Gaza.
Need to Reconsider Regional and Global Order
In light of these developments, Trump’s remarks should not be viewed as a commendable act of peacemaking but rather as a troubling admission of decades of US involvement in the actions of the Israeli regime and a reflection of Washington’s interest-driven approach to regional affairs. Whenever US interests have required it, Washington has enabled the regime’s actions; whenever those interests have changed, it has sought to restrain them.
This reality suggests that the United States is not the solution to regional crises but rather part of their underlying cause. Consequently, a regional and international consensus aimed at ending the US military presence in West Asia and moving from American unilateralism toward a more multipolar framework could create conditions for a lasting and comprehensive peace.
Today, many argue that the United States, alongside the Israeli regime, should be held accountable for actions they characterize as crimes against humanity. At the same time, Trump’s statements are viewed by supporters of Iran and the Resistance Front as further evidence supporting their long-held positions: that US-sponsored ceasefires lack credibility and that preparedness to respond to any act of aggression remains essential.
Within this framework, Iran’s management of the Strait of Hormuz is also presented by supporters as a deterrent measure against what they describe as the aggressive policies of the United States and the Israeli regime, and as a means of safeguarding regional and global security.