Afrasianet - Ihab Jabareen - A three-dimensional agreement: Iran, armament, and the disengagement of fronts, three points that Netanyahu referred to in his promotional speech for the agreement, which is very similar to the Versailles Treaty on the region, addressing the Israeli public, even though the target audience was the international community. What lies behind this agreement? What are its dimensions?
The description of Iran is not a coincidence, and it is not just a consumption of passing public opinion, at least not this time. Calling Iran an axis of evil is not new, as Netanyahu has used it over the past decade as a pretext to kill the Palestinian cause in the first place, because the Iranian dimension constitutes the geopolitical dimension of Israel's function in the region.
Especially now, as the dimensions of its international and regional relations are redrawn, Israel is trying in this agreement to enshrine the meaning of the "policeman of the region," a concept that Netanyahu mentioned in his recent speech at the United Nations, about the "alliance of good and the regional alliance of evil." Therefore, if Israel wanted to form this alliance around it, so that the parties would be either with it or against it, it should have used this front to entrench this concept.
Therefore, Israel will not accept entry into Lebanon and exit without a clear political change—at least regarding the extent to which the "axis of evil," by definition, is involved in this country.
Ordering ranks was necessary for Israel. I tried to achieve this militarily, but the airstrikes did not achieve the goal, and on the ground I faced strong resistance in the form of dead and wounded that quickly filled with triple numbers.
This situation prompted Israel to resort to diplomacy as an inevitable option, sooner or later, to translate tactical strikes into strategic outcomes. For Israel, what was before this war should not be the same as after it.
The messages here are addressed to Iran and its allies in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, as well as to countries close to the path of normalization, which need an instrument to ensure that their alliance with Israel reflects intersecting interests with a powerful state.
Therefore, Israel worked to translate the terms of the agreement according to its "fantasy", as a surrender card similar to the surrender cards of Japan and Germany during World War II, governed by a specific committee. However, this dimension is still early to be resolved, as it is measured in the long term.
However, many questions arise about the function of the five-member committee: is it limited to demarcating the border between Israel and Lebanon? Or will it go beyond that to demarcate Lebanon's internal political borders?
Second dimension: rearmament
Netanyahu mentioned the importance of rearming the overstretched Israeli army so that it recovers, pointing to the strategic dimension that shapes the relations between the United States and Israel. This agreement proves that Israel is not completely free in its actions beyond the sea and river, but is obligated to pay instruments of obedience to American desires no matter how much it tries to maneuver and evade. There is always an outlet for the United States to turn to if Israel rebels.
Netanyahu, who is being pursued by arrest warrants, came out yesterday announcing Israel's acceptance of the agreement, citing the importance of "resting the soldiers" and pointing to armament considerations, which may reflect US pressure. These pressures were linked to US President Joe Biden's reference two days ago to the need to accelerate the liberation of part of the outstanding military packages. This was accompanied by Hochstein's threat to withdraw the mediation card, a card Netanyahu urgently needs in light of his "weakness" resulting from the arrest warrants.
The third dimension: the dispersal of squares
It is undeniable that this front was the most painful for Israel, and it even deeply hurt the home front. Therefore, it must get rid of this front in the field to achieve an urgent image of victory in front of the Israeli street, such as returning the residents to their homes to build trust and the social contract between society and the state.
However, there is an urgent need to accelerate the disbandment of fronts to achieve field, security, economic and political goals, because this war has revealed that it is almost impossible for Israel to deal alone with simultaneous escalations. Therefore, any agreement that extinguishes any front far from the sea and the river is a goal that must be quickly established, especially since Netanyahu seeks to annihilate the Palestinian cause by focusing it on Gaza, linking Gaza to Hamas, and portraying Hamas as an Iranian dimension only.
Conclusion:
Israel suffers from deep political divisions, internal protests against government policies, and a fragile economic landscape. Thus, calm on external fronts relieves internal pressure and allows the government to deal with its crises.