And what now? Opinion Article

It’s hard to say that the Americans’ conduct in signing the agreement with the Iranians surprised us. There were quite a few clear signs in the statements of Trump administration officials in recent months, including the president himself. It was clear that the Americans had decided to sign an agreement with Iran no matter what, because that is their clear interest, and the Israeli interest has become irrelevant.

The United States may see us as an ally, but let’s not be confused they are the elephant and we are the fly on its back. We have become a full American proxy, and that’s why President Trump allows himself to say, “Bibi will do what I say.” There is a price to our complete dependence on American armaments and the so-called “buddy-buddy” relationship with the president.

The Iranians skillfully maneuvered the negotiations with the Americans and understood the American interest very well. At every stage of the negotiations, they stretched the rope to its limit and sometimes even “agreed” to absorb a minor American military strike, only to immediately return to the negotiating table. In this way, on the one hand, they gave the Americans the impression that every apparent achievement in the negotiations was hard-won, and on the other hand, they bought time and got what they wanted. This is probably the strategy we will see going forward, but there’s a good chance that hubris will cause them to go too far, and they may end up sabotaging the agreement themselves, either intentionally or by mistake.

For now, we must deal with the reality imposed on us and try to minimize diplomatic damage with our ally and the surrounding neighbors, while preserving the military achievements gained in the Lebanese arena against Hezbollah. I will not address the political situation within Israel, only say that now is the time to put politics aside, no matter the cost, to recover, show leadership, and take diplomatic initiative to preserve whatever can still be saved.

Israel must advance negotiations with Lebanon and reach a draft agreement in the coming weeks, even at the cost of concessions where possible, without harming the objective. Remaining in the current security zone is a temporary burden, just to have something to bargain and give up on the way to signing. Beyond that, since it is not possible to continue significant fighting (for example, conquering Nabatieh, which is apparently strategic for Hezbollah), we must minimize losses and damage in places where we have already been and suffered.

The agreement with Lebanon is critical and is the only way to neutralize Iran’s return to control Lebanon. The agreement will force the Lebanese government to seriously confront Hezbollah, and part of the agreement must include the involvement of external forces to assist the Lebanese government both militarily and economically as part of the fight against Iranian money that will again flow to Hezbollah. The battle for the rehabilitation of southern Lebanon between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah must be decided within the framework of the agreement, so that it is clear to Lebanese refugees where their help will come from.

An agreement with Lebanon will put Iran to the test: if it tries to sabotage it, it will harm the agreement with the United States and endanger its main achievements in the Gulf and within Iran. It will be tested whether to sacrifice Hezbollah as a military force or at least preserve it as a political force.

In Syria, despite all those who remind us that Ahmad al-Shara reeks of ISIS, let me remind you that he is the president of Syria, accepted and even respected by many countries around the world. If he falls, we will probably face something much more extreme. To his credit, he is pragmatic, a Syrian nationalist, and intelligent. And finally, agreements are signed with enemies, not with friends.

The agreement to be signed with Syria will probably be a kind of non-aggression pact and the beginning of a normalization process between the countries. As part of the agreement, Israel will have to withdraw to the international border based on the 1974 agreement. We should try to agree with the Syrian regime, an Israeli presence at the Peak of Mount Hermon, at least if there is no agreement with Lebanon, and of course ensure the safety and security of the Druze in Syria.

These two agreements are supposed, first and foremost, on the international level, to reduce pressure on Israel, partially thwart Turkey’s plans in our region, establish us as part of the land corridor arrangement between the Gulf and the Mediterranean, and restore relations with the United States.

And much more important, it will bring us closer to closing two open fronts in the north. It will lift the heavy burden off the IDF, which urgently needs breathing room to reorganize and renew itself for future challenges in Iran and Gaza, and of course, allow thousands of reservists to rehabilitate themselves and their families.

And to anyone who says that the new strategy of security zones around our international borders is the solution, I say: a country that cannot defend itself within its international borders is not worthy of being a country. We cannot invent rules for ourselves and remain part of the international community. The IDF’s job is to guard the borders and separate the border from the civilians. Our leaders must define the missions for the IDF and are obligated to ensure that the IDF carries them out.

The correct and longstanding strategy of Ben-Gurion, a strong army that knows how to conduct short wars and quickly transfer the fighting to enemy territory is the right one. The problem is that since the Six-Day War in 1967, we have not bothered to implement it. And anyone who thinks that a small and smart army is enough, I say, is mistaken. A large, strong, and above all smart army. That is the future.

Written by: Gidi Harari

www.gidiharari.com