...
By Bradley Martin and Liram Koblentz-Stenzler
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran was attempting to “mix" everything together by linking Lebanon, maritime security, and negotiations with Washington into a single diplomatic package. Recent statements from Tehran suggest that this is precisely what is happening.
As the U.S. moves toward a new agreement with Iran, senior Iranian officials have publicly linked the future of the deal to developments in Lebanon, including Israeli military operations against Hezbollah. In doing so, Tehran is revealing a deeper strategic objective that extends well beyond sanctions relief or freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
For decades, Hezbollah served as Iran’s strategic shield. The terrorist organization was built, armed, and financed to deter attacks on Tehran and raise the cost of military action against the Islamic Republic. Any adversary considering a strike on Iran’s nuclear program had to account for Hezbollah’s ability to threaten Israeli cities, infrastructure, and civilians.
Read More on Opinion
Today, that relationship appears to be reversing.
...
Rather than Hezbollah serving as Iran’s strategic shield, Iran is increasingly using negotiations with Washington to protect Hezbollah.
This reversal is one of the most significant and underappreciated developments in the Middle East. Faced with sustained Israeli pressure against Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, Tehran appears determined to leverage diplomacy to achieve what its proxy has struggled to secure on the battlefield: restrictions on Israeli freedom of action.
The implications extend far beyond Israel.
Freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is a global interest. It is not a concession that Iran is entitled to exchange for political gains elsewhere. Yet Tehran is attempting to connect international commerce, regional de-escalation, and the future of Hezbollah into a single bargaining framework.
If this approach succeeds, it establishes a dangerous precedent. It signals that a state can support armed proxies, threaten international stability, and then use negotiations to shield those same proxies from military pressure.
The issue is not whether diplomacy with Iran is desirable. Diplomacy is often necessary. The issue is whether Washington is accepting a framework in which Tehran defines the terms of regional security by linking unrelated theaters into a single negotiation.
This dynamic also threatens the foundation of President Trump’s signature foreign-policy doctrine: peace through strength.
An agreement that produces temporary calm while indirectly protecting Iranian proxies does not project strength. It risks signaling that asymmetric pressure can be converted into diplomatic leverage. America’s adversaries—from Beijing to Moscow—will closely study whether coercive behavior is rewarded when repackaged as negotiation.
Any discussion of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon must also acknowledge the security reality that produced the current confrontation. Tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced from communities along the northern border. Millions remain within range of Hezbollah’s missile arsenal. No American administration would accept a comparable threat along its own frontier.
As Thomas Hobbes observed, the first duty of a sovereign is the security of its citizens. Governments are not expected to tolerate entrenched military threats on their borders while waiting for those threats to become even more dangerous.
Israel is not opposed in principle to an agreement that genuinely ends hostilities. But sustainable peace cannot be built by insulating armed proxies from pressure while leaving the underlying threat intact.
President Trump has an opportunity to secure a genuine diplomatic breakthrough. But lasting stability will require rejecting Tehran’s effort to redefine the terms of regional security.
For decades, Hezbollah existed to protect Iran. The U.S. should not allow a new regional order in which Iran uses negotiations with America to protect Hezbollah. A durable peace will come not from shielding terrorist infrastructure through diplomacy, but from ensuring that it can no longer threaten the region at all.
Bradley Martin is the executive director of the Near East Center for Strategic Studies. Follow him on Facebook and X @ByBradleyMartin. Dr. Liram Koblentz-Stenzler is the head of the Global Extremism and Antisemitism Desk at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at Reichman University, Herzliya, and a visiting scholar at Brandeis University. Follow her on LinkedIn.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines