When War Becomes an American Decision: Multiple Readings and the Erosion of Israeli Decision-Making Center

 

The ceasefire in Lebanon was not a fleeting event in the context of a long and multi-front war, but a revealing moment that rearranged the major questions: Who decides war? Who decides its end? Does Israel still possess a margin of strategic decision-making, or is it operating within a framework drawn outside of it?

On the surface, it appears as though there is "coordination" between two traditional allies: Washington and Israel. However, the interpretation shared by several Israeli analysts, despite their differing perspectives, suggests something deeper: the shift of the center of gravity from Israel to Washington, specifically to the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, which, according to these readings, imposed the rhythm of the war and its limits, not just its diplomatic course.

In this context, military analysts like Amos Harel assert that the ceasefire in Lebanon cannot be separated from a broader trajectory linked to negotiations with Iran. The equation, as presented, does not involve Lebanon alone but a regional engineering that Washington wants to control in a way that allows for a settlement with Tehran, even if this comes at the expense of the Israeli vision that sought to link the war with a broader goal: changing the rules of engagement and perhaps changing the regional system itself.

According to this understanding, the Israeli decision is no longer independent at its critical moment. Some analyses even go so far as to say that Israel finds itself in a position of "execution" for a larger political agenda, the outlines of which are being drawn in Washington, while it is left with the task of managing the field results—not just a partner in formulating the decision, but an active party moving within boundaries no longer defined solely by itself.
From an internal political perspective, analysts interpret this shift as a personal predicament for Benjamin Netanyahu. He, who advocated a broad escalation on multiple fronts and built a narrative of "determinism" and "changing the equation," now finds himself facing settlements that do not resemble those promises. The dilemma is not only military but also rhetorical: how can he convince the Israeli public that the objectives have been achieved when Hezbollah has not been defeated, Iran has not been strategically deterred, and structural threats remain?

Here, a structural gap appears between the "narrative of war" and its "actual outcomes," which some analysts describe as the center of the current political crisis. On the Lebanese front and northern Israel, this gap takes a sharper form; the residents of the border settlements who have returned home find themselves in a different reality: the organization has not been broken, deterrence has not been resolved, and the very idea of "victory" has become questionable.

In Yossi Yehoshua's reading, close to the military establishment, the issue takes a practical turn; he does not view the war as a final resolution but as a long process of "managing results." This perspective focuses on two questions: Is the security situation in the north actually improving? And does Israel's ability to weaken Hezbollah exceed the party's ability to rebuild itself? The answer is not decisive, indicating that the ceasefire is merely a station within a longer conflict.

Conversely, Meir Ben-Shabbat presents a more cautious reading, based on the premise that any agreement not accompanied by strict conditions will be fragile. However, what stands out in Ben-Shabbat's reading, as a key figure of the security right, is his implicit acknowledgment that Israel's ability to impose its conditions is not absolute, and that the American stance has become the decisive factor.

In contrast to these critical readings, a different approach emerges within the government-aligned media discourse, represented by writers like Amit Segal, who see what is happening not as an erosion of decision-making but as an expression of deep strategic coordination. However, this reading, at its core, seems directed at shaping the awareness of the Israeli public and defending Netanyahu before his right-wing base; where American pressures are portrayed as a "lever of power" to absorb Israeli public anger and transform dependency into "political intelligence." It is an attempt to beautify reality, ignoring a fundamental criterion in defining strategic independence: the ability to reject imposition, not merely to participate in its formulation. When the decision becomes linked to the calculations of an external party, the talk of "coordination" loses its equal significance, transforming into a redistribution of the decision-making center rather than a partnership in it.

As for Kobi Mikhael, he offers a more pessimistic perspective regarding Gaza and Iran; negotiations in Cairo are not a pathway to a solution but a permanent management of the crisis that gives Hamas an opportunity to reposition itself. In Iran, he believes that any potential agreement could become a "lifeline" for the regime, meaning strengthening the adversary instead of weakening it.

The common thread among most of these readings is the repositioning of the role of the United States, specifically Donald Trump, as a direct actor imposing the rhythm of war and calm. This shift means that the war is no longer managed solely on battlefields but in international decision-making centers, and that Israel is no longer the only player determining the timing of the fire and its ceiling.

Ultimately, what emerges is a deeper transitional state; Israel is caught between the narrative of "strategic victory" and a field reality that proves incomplete. The ceasefire has become a major revealing moment: not only regarding the limits of military power but also regarding the decision-making margin itself, as Israel is forced to operate within broader balances that determine the ceiling of what can be achieved, not the essence of what is desired to be reached. Here, the balance of power is not only tested but also the meaning of sovereignty in decision-making: when to start the war, and when to end it.