Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon for as long as necessary.
As diplomats gathered at the G7 summit in France, the distance between words and warfare became impossible to ignore. Donald Trump publicly rebuked Benjamin Netanyahu for prolonging Israel's campaign in Lebanon, even as Israeli jets struck Lebanese villages and a US-Iran peace agreement awaited its formal signature in Switzerland. The conflict, which has claimed more than 3,800 Lebanese lives since March, continues to grind forward on its own momentum — indifferent to diplomatic milestones and presidential disapproval alike. What hangs in the balance is whether a deal still locked from public view can impose order on a war that has already outpaced the intentions of those who might end it.
- Israeli drones and jets struck multiple sites in southern Lebanon on Wednesday, injuring civilians, even as a US-brokered peace agreement with Iran awaited formal signing just days away.
- Trump's rare public rebuke of Netanyahu at the G7 — calling the Lebanon campaign too long and too deadly — exposed a fracture between Washington and Tel Aviv that neither side has moved to repair.
- Netanyahu responded to the criticism not with concession but with resolve, declaring Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon indefinitely, effectively raising a wall against any external timeline.
- Hezbollah claimed the US-Iran memorandum of understanding as a 'great victory,' while Iran's military warned Israel of a 'harsh response' if strikes in the south did not cease — keeping the region on a knife's edge.
- The peace deal, brokered by Pakistan and set for formal signing Friday in Switzerland, remains unreleased to the public, leaving its promises — including a nuclear-free Iran and a reopened Strait of Hormuz — unverifiable and contested.
On Tuesday, as G7 leaders gathered in France, Donald Trump broke from his customary deference toward Israel and told the world what he thought: Netanyahu had fought Hezbollah too long, and too many people had died. The words were measured but unmistakable. Yet even as Trump spoke, Israeli warplanes were striking targets across southern Lebanon — Mansouri, Nabatieh al-Fawqa, Kfar Tebnit — injuring civilians on the ground. Hezbollah, meanwhile, wounded five Israeli soldiers in a drone attack of its own. The cycle continued, indifferent to presidential disapproval.
The backdrop is a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, brokered by Pakistan and announced just days earlier, that was supposed to bring the regional war to a close. Both sides are expected to sign it formally on Friday at the Swiss resort of Bürgenstock. Trump promised to read the agreement aloud at a news conference, claiming it would prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. But the text remains unreleased, and the fighting has not stopped.
Lebanon was drawn into the conflict on March 2, when Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel following a strike that killed Iran's supreme leader. Israel responded with a bombing campaign and a ground invasion of the south. More than 3,800 people have since been killed in Lebanon, according to the country's health ministry — a figure that makes no distinction between combatants and civilians. Israeli authorities report 30 soldiers and four civilians killed on their side, a number that underscores the profound asymmetry of the war.
Trump's criticism of Netanyahu carried the tone of a disappointed mentor — someone with leverage speaking to someone who had overstepped. He said he didn't like the recent attack on Beirut. It was too much. Yet Netanyahu had already made his position clear: Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon 'for as long as necessary.' The phrase was a wall against any timeline or expectation of a near-term withdrawal.
Hezbollah's leader, Naim Qassem, called the US-Iran agreement a 'great victory' in a televised address, urging Lebanon to seize the moment — though he defined the country's core demand narrowly: Israeli troops must withdraw from occupied territory before anything else. Lebanon's president, Joseph Aoun, struck a more careful balance, describing an 'independent path' in Washington negotiations while welcoming ceasefire support from any willing party, including Iran.
Iran's military command added its own pressure, warning Israel of a 'harsh response' if strikes in southern Lebanon did not end. The threat was unspecified but unmistakable — a reminder that the agreement on the table is not yet signed, and the region remains volatile. Whether Trump's rebuke will change anything on the ground is far from certain. The deal was supposed to end the war. The war is still happening.
On Tuesday, as diplomats gathered at the G7 summit in France, Donald Trump broke with his usual deference to Israeli leadership and said something his counterpart in Tel Aviv needed to hear: Benjamin Netanyahu had to start acting more responsibly in Lebanon. The words were measured but unmistakable. Israel had been fighting Hezbollah for too long, Trump said. Too many people were dying. Yet even as he spoke, Israeli warplanes were already in the air over southern Lebanon, striking targets in Mansouri, Aaziyyeh, Nabatieh al-Fawqa, and Kfar Tebnit. The drones and jets injured several people on the ground. Hezbollah, for its part, had launched a drone attack that wounded five Israeli soldiers. The cycle continued, indifferent to presidential disapproval.
The backdrop to this moment is a deal announced just days earlier—a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, brokered by Pakistan, that was supposed to end the war consuming the region. Both sides were expected to sign it formally on Friday in the Swiss resort of Bürgenstock. Trump promised he would read the agreement aloud at a news conference, word by word, so the world could see what he had secured. He claimed it would prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon and would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, that crucial waterway in the Gulf, toll-free. It was, in his telling, a far better deal than the one Barack Obama had negotiated in 2015—one that had cost the United States billions of dollars in sanctions relief and unfrozen funds.
But the text of the deal remained unreleased, and the fighting had not stopped. Lebanon, drawn into this conflict on March 2 when Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel in retaliation for a strike that killed Iran's supreme leader, had become the grinding center of the violence. Israel responded with a bombing campaign and a ground invasion of the south. More than 3,800 people had been killed in Lebanon since then, according to the country's health ministry—a figure that makes no distinction between combatants and civilians. Israeli authorities reported 30 soldiers and four civilians killed on both sides of the border, a vastly smaller number that underscores the asymmetry of the conflict.
Trump's criticism of Netanyahu was pointed but not harsh. He said he had a great relationship with the Israeli prime minister, but he "didn't like" the recent attack on Beirut. It was too much. The remark carried the tone of a disappointed mentor—someone with leverage speaking to someone who had overstepped. Yet Netanyahu, speaking on Monday, had already made clear he would not be constrained by such words. Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary," he said. The phrase was a wall against any timeline, any pressure, any expectation that the occupation would end soon.
Hezbollah's leader, Naim Qassem, took a different tone. In a televised address on Wednesday, he called the US-Iran agreement a "great victory" and urged Lebanon to seize the moment. But his definition of victory was narrow: he said Lebanon's negotiations with Israel should focus only on mutual security, and that the country's primary demand must be the restoration of its sovereignty through the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territory. It was a demand that sat uneasily with Netanyahu's promise to stay as long as necessary.
Lebanon's president, Joseph Aoun, was threading a different needle. He said his country was pursuing an "independent path" in its negotiations with Israel in Washington, but he welcomed a ceasefire and would accept support from any country willing to help—including Iran. The statement was a delicate balance, an attempt to claim agency while acknowledging the forces arrayed around his country.
Iran's military command, meanwhile, had issued a warning. On Tuesday, after Lebanese media reported that four people had been killed in Israeli strikes, Iran's top brass said Israel would face a "harsh response" if it did not end its "malice" in southern Lebanon. The threat hung in the air, unspecified but unmistakable, a reminder that the deal on the table was not yet signed and that the region remained volatile.
What remained unclear was whether Trump's public rebuke would change anything on the ground. The deal was supposed to end the war, but the war was still happening. Netanyahu had heard the criticism and chosen to ignore it. The strikes continued. The dead accumulated. And the memorandum of understanding, the document that was supposed to reset everything, remained locked away, waiting for Friday.
Citas Notables
Israel's prime minister needed to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon; the country had been fighting Hezbollah for too long and too many people were being killed.— Donald Trump, at G7 summit
Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon for as long as necessary.— Benjamin Netanyahu
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Trump's criticism matter if Netanyahu is just going to keep fighting anyway?
Because it's public. Trump has leverage with Israel—military aid, diplomatic cover—and he's using it visibly. When he says Netanyahu is being irresponsible, he's signaling to the region that there are limits. Whether Netanyahu respects those limits is another question.
But Netanyahu said Israeli forces stay "as long as necessary." That sounds like he's not listening.
Exactly. He's pushing back. It's a test of whether Trump will actually enforce the restraint he's calling for, or whether it's just words. The real question is what happens after Friday when the deal is signed.
What does the deal actually do if Israel keeps striking?
That's the tension nobody's resolved yet. The deal is supposed to end the war, but it hasn't been released publicly. We don't know what it commits Iran to, what it commits the US to, or how it handles the Lebanon situation specifically. Pakistan says it includes Lebanon, but the details are still hidden.
So this could all fall apart?
It could. Hezbollah is calling it a victory, but they're also saying Lebanon's main demand is Israeli withdrawal. Netanyahu says he's staying indefinitely. Those two positions are incompatible. The deal might create a framework, but the actual negotiations—the hard part—haven't really started.
What about the Lebanese people caught in the middle?
Over 3,800 dead since March. That's the weight everything is balanced on. The deal might stop the fighting, or it might just be a pause while everyone repositions. Either way, Lebanon has already paid an enormous price.