Claim: Netanyahu pushed Trump to drop Lebanon from Iran ceasefire deal
Unnamed US officials say President Donald Trump initially agreed that a temporary truce between the United States and Iran would also cover Lebanon, but reversed course after a phone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
According to two anonymous sources who spoke to American media, Trump was at first prepared to include Lebanese territory in the short-term ceasefire framework. Mediators involved in the talks operated on the assumption that Lebanon was part of the understanding and shaped their diplomacy accordingly.
Figures such as Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi publicly stated that Lebanon was inside the scope of the emerging deal, reflecting what they believed had been agreed behind closed doors. On the day the temporary truce was announced, a White House official even said that Israel had accepted the terms reached with Iranian representatives under Pakistan’s mediation, suggesting that all regional fronts linked to this confrontation were covered.
However, the situation shifted rapidly. Later that same day, Trump and Netanyahu held a phone call. Sources familiar with the exchange claim that after speaking with the Israeli leader, Trump changed his stance on Lebanon’s status. Subsequent public statements by the US president made clear that, in his view, Lebanon would not be included in the arrangement.
In later remarks to American media outlets, Trump explicitly argued that Lebanon had been excluded “because of Hezbollah.” He insisted that the issue connected to the Lebanese front would be dealt with separately, adding that this did not pose a problem for Washington’s broader strategy. His comments made clear that armed activity involving Hezbollah remained outside the temporary truce.
The controversy unfolded against the backdrop of a dramatic escalation. On 28 February, joint strikes by the United States and Israel against Iranian targets triggered Iranian retaliation and attacks on several countries in the region. A tense military confrontation risked spiralling into a much wider war, forcing all sides to explore de-escalation channels.
Amid this high-stakes atmosphere, Trump announced at around 1:30 a.m. on 8 April that he had accepted a ceasefire proposal. He said Washington had agreed to a two-week truce on the condition that the Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime chokepoint for global oil shipments, be reopened. Trump also revealed that Iran had delivered a 10-point proposal, which he described as a workable basis for further negotiations.
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, for its part, declared that Tehran had achieved its main wartime objectives. Iranian officials indicated that final negotiations would be held in Islamabad and expressed hope that the talks could be wrapped up within a maximum of 15 days, setting a tight diplomatic timeline to turn the temporary truce into a more lasting understanding.
Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt played active roles in relaying messages and easing tensions. Their diplomatic efforts focused on keeping communication channels between Washington and Tehran open, helping both sides refine the terms of the ceasefire and avoid miscalculations that could reignite large-scale hostilities.
Officially, the Israeli government said it supported the temporary halt in fighting between the United States and Iran. Yet Israeli authorities simultaneously argued that the arrangement did not cover Lebanon and therefore did not constrain Israel’s actions against targets there. On that basis, Israel has continued its strikes on Lebanese territory, particularly against positions associated with Hezbollah, insisting that its northern front remains an open battlefield.
This divergence between public declarations and behind-the-scenes understandings has raised questions about who truly set the parameters of the ceasefire. If the reports about Trump’s early approval of Lebanon’s inclusion are accurate, Netanyahu’s intervention appears to have been decisive in carving out an exception for the Lebanese front. That exception now threatens to undermine the broader de-escalation effort.
The central sticking point is Hezbollah’s role. From Washington’s perspective, Hezbollah is a key pillar of Iran’s regional network and a major security concern for Israel. Including Lebanon in any ceasefire would effectively place constraints on Israeli operations against a group considered by both the United States and Israel to be a core element of Iran’s regional power projection. For Netanyahu, accepting such limits in the middle of a wider confrontation with Tehran would have been politically and strategically costly.
Lebanon itself risks becoming the primary arena for proxy confrontation. As US-Iran tensions are partially frozen by the temporary deal, the Lebanese border region remains volatile. Regular exchanges of fire, airstrikes, and the risk of miscalculation have sustained fears of a full-scale war between Israel and Hezbollah, which would devastate Lebanon’s fragile economy and political system even further.
The decision to exclude Lebanon also illustrates a broader pattern in regional crisis management: attempts to compartmentalize conflicts rather than address them as part of a single regional security framework. While Washington and Tehran might be able to lock in a limited truce focused on maritime security and direct military exchanges, unresolved fronts in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen can quickly drag both sides back into confrontation.
Another implication is the growing influence of domestic politics on foreign policy choices. For Trump, appearing to coordinate too closely with Iran or to restrict Israel’s freedom of action could invite fierce criticism at home. For Netanyahu, who faces his own political pressures, showing any sign of restraint toward Hezbollah can be portrayed as weakness. These internal calculations color how both leaders interpret ceasefire terms and where they draw red lines.
Regional mediators face a difficult balancing act. States like Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt try to reduce tensions by building narrow, issue-based understandings-such as agreements focused on shipping security or limited truces-while being fully aware that every partial deal leaves unresolved files that can explode later. Their challenge now is to prevent clashes in Lebanon from sabotaging the fragile US-Iran de-escalation process.
For Lebanon, being left out of the temporary truce highlights its chronic vulnerability. The country hosts powerful non-state actors, is deeply entangled in regional rivalries, and has limited capacity to shield its population from decisions made in foreign capitals. Without a clear political roadmap that includes Lebanon in wider security arrangements, any lull in fighting elsewhere in the region may simply shift the center of gravity of violence to Lebanese soil.
In the coming weeks, whether Lebanon remains outside any negotiated framework will be a key test of how durable the US-Iran truce can be. If Israel’s continued operations in Lebanon provoke a stronger Hezbollah response or draw in Iranian support, the fragile calm on other fronts may quickly unravel, confirming fears that a ceasefire that excludes one of the main flashpoints in the region is, at best, a temporary pause rather than the start of a lasting peace.