Haaretz: ‘Israeli’ Army Worried That Iran Deal Could Force It to Withdraw from Southern Lebanon 

By Staff, Agencies 

As “Israeli” military analysts continue to lament the US- Iranian agreement, Haaretz daily revealed that senior “Israeli” war officials have voiced increasing concern in recent days over the American negotiations with Iran, since “Israel” has been almost completely excluded from them, with no ability to influence the outcome.

Security issues that directly affect “Israel” are being discussed in the talks, they said, but “Israel” has no real ability to insist that its security interests be upheld or to set conditions in the negotiations.

According to Haaretz, military establishment is also disappointed by the way the fighting is ending and the position “Israel” finds itself in as new regional arrangements emerge. 
“Our feeling is that some of the assets acquired on the battlefield aren't being expressed at the negotiating table,” a military official said.

The daily further mentioned that the “Israeli” army is also in a state of uncertainty over its continued deployment in Lebanon.

“The army thinks it is likely to be asked to withdraw to the Yellow Line – a line roughly 10 kilometers north of the border – in the near future, and it fears that later, ‘Israel’ will come under additional pressure and be forced to retreat fully to the international border without any mechanism in place to protect ‘Israel's’ interests,” it added.

Haaretz mentioned that “Some officers think the army should start preparing now to conduct an orderly withdrawal of its own initiative to the Yellow Line, in part because hundreds of thousands of residents of southern Lebanon who fled during the war are now expected to return. A large-scale civilian presence in areas where the ‘Israeli’ army is operating could increase the risk of clashes.”

But other officers argue that “now is the time to create facts on the ground. In other words, not only shouldn't the army withdraw, but it should establish a grip on additional parts of Lebanon, on the assumption that any territory the ‘Israeli’ army holds could be used as a bargaining chip for a future deal.”

“At the minute, the forces are awaiting the diplomatic decisions," one said. "The problem is that those decisions are being made elsewhere, and ‘Israel’ isn't sitting at the table where the terms that will affect its security in the coming years are being settled."

"It's hard to understand how anyone thinks that replacing Hezbollah with Golani's people would make the security situation better for ‘Israel’," a senior officer involved in events on the northern border said, referring to Al-Sharaa by his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammed al-Golani. "This is an idea that could harm ‘Israel’ in both the security and the diplomatic realms."

Contrary to the impression Al-Sharaa has created in his meetings with Western and Arab leaders, the officer said, “Israel” hasn't bought the moderate image the new Syrian regime is trying to sell.

"The discourse we've been seeing continues to view ‘Israel’ as an enemy," he explained. "There are people who continue to hold extremist ideological worldviews, and their attitude toward ‘Israel’ is far from being of the type on which long-term security arrangements could be built."