Nournews: Although several days have passed since the tense events of Monday regarding Israel’s threats against Lebanon, the incident and its outcome should not be overlooked, and its causes and context must be repeatedly examined. As has been noted in recent days, at that time Lebanon once again stood on the brink of a major crisis.
The Israeli army issued warnings ordering residents of the Dahiyeh area in the southern suburbs of Beirut to evacuate certain zones. This threat, in Lebanon’s political memory, recalls days when large-scale Israeli attacks targeted the heart of Shiite areas in Beirut—precisely where Hezbollah, the leading force of the resistance axis, is most active. Following the announcement, the regional media and political atmosphere quickly became tense, with fears rising over the consequences of the threat being carried out, including the collapse of the ceasefire and the outbreak of a new war.
In such circumstances, senior political, security, and military officials in Iran reacted swiftly and in unusually explicit terms. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Seyed Abbas Araghchi issued clear warnings about the consequences of any new aggression, while the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters stated decisively that the expansion of Israeli attacks could be met with direct and immediate Iranian responses targeting areas within occupied territories.
The combination of these unprecedented positions sent a clear message: any potential attack on Dahiyeh would not remain a purely Lebanese issue and would immediately take on a regional dimension.
However, at the peak of tensions, the course of events suddenly changed. Reports suggested a tense and challenging phone call between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, which ultimately led to Israel stepping back from its initial decision and the de-escalation of the crisis.
At first glance, this may appear to reflect an attempt by the U.S. president to restrain Israel’s aggressive behavior. But beyond the surface, and considering Washington’s strategic logic in its recent confrontation with Iran, a different picture emerges. There are multiple indications that Trump prevented the Israeli attack not out of concern for Lebanon or due to disagreement with Netanyahu, but in line with his broader strategy in the regional conflict with Iran.
In reality, after days of direct military tensions in the region, the United States appears to have entered a phase that can be described as a “strategic suspension policy.” Evidence suggests that Trump is currently neither seeking a full-scale war with Iran nor pursuing a stable peace. He is not aiming for the complete elimination of crises, nor does he want the conflict to spiral into uncontrollable war. Instead, Washington is shaping a situation in which tension exists but remains controlled—where Iran and its regional networks remain under pressure, but no major war erupts.
An attack on Dahiyeh could have disrupted this desired equation. It would likely have reactivated the Lebanese front, pushed the region toward broader confrontation, and most importantly, jeopardized emerging understandings and negotiations following the recent conflict. Trump is well aware that any renewed explosion of crisis in Lebanon could trigger a chain reaction—from escalating Iran–U.S. tensions to the reactivation of resistance-aligned groups across the region. In such a scenario, crisis control would become more difficult and costs for Washington would rise significantly.
Another key factor is economics. Unlike some American politicians, Trump consistently views foreign policy through the lens of domestic economic impact. Experience in recent months has shown that any sign of escalating war in the Middle East can severely destabilize global energy markets and the U.S. economy alike. Rising oil prices, higher fuel costs, and growing economic uncertainty are issues Washington cannot ignore. From this perspective, an attack on Dahiyeh was not merely a limited military operation; it was a spark that could once again send global markets into turmoil. Trump is well aware that a surge in energy prices directly affects American citizens and could undermine his claimed economic achievements.
Another important dimension is the management of Israel. In recent months, there have been repeated instances where a gap has emerged between the short-term objectives of Netanyahu’s government and broader U.S. strategic goals. Netanyahu often acts based on Israel’s immediate security calculations, while Washington must account for wider regional and global consequences. Therefore, Trump’s call to Netanyahu can be seen as an attempt to control an ally whose actions could potentially endanger the larger American strategy. In effect, the U.S. president conveyed that major regional decisions should not be based solely on Tel Aviv’s calculations.
Perhaps most importantly, Trump is not seeking a return to the era of endless Middle Eastern wars. Based on his past unsuccessful experiences regarding Iran, he is attempting to construct a new regional order in which the United States remains the dominant actor but bears fewer direct military and security costs. Achieving this requires maintaining a middle condition—one in which all actors feel threatened but none move toward full-scale war.
Within this framework, Dahiyeh became a critical flashpoint. An attack there could have overturned the entire equation and pushed the region back to the brink of war. The firm stance of senior Iranian political and military officials in countering the dangerous threats of the Israeli regime helped preserve the balance of power and reduced the risk of renewed escalation. Meanwhile, the U.S. position in preventing Netanyahu from carrying out the threat, while effective in managing tensions, was less a sign of a shift in Washington’s approach to Israel and more an indication of the prioritization of a new U.S. strategy—namely, maintaining suspension, controlling crises, and preventing any move that could push the region from “managed tension” into “uncontrollable war.”
In this sense, Trump neither acted as a peacemaker nor as a neutral mediator. Rather, he defended a larger project—one built on maintaining the fragile existing balance. From Washington’s viewpoint, in the current Middle East, neither war nor full peace is desirable; what is desirable is a suspension that preserves America’s ability to manage, pressure, and negotiate.
Nournews